Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Mobilisation strategies after hip fracture surgery in adults

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001704.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 18 octubre 2004see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Lesiones óseas, articulares y musculares

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2006 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Helen HG Handoll

    Correspondencia a: c/o University Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    [email protected]

  • Catherine Sherrington

    Centre for Education and Research on Ageing (CERA), Concord Hospital, Sydney, Australia

  • Martyn J Parker

    Orthopaedic Department, Peterborough District Hospital, Peterborough, UK

Contributions of authors

Martyn Parker initiated and designed the review and compiled the first draft of the review. Helen Handoll located the review studies, checked data entry and critically rewrote and completed the first draft. Three reviewers, Yvonne Dynan, Helen Handoll and Martyn Parker performed independent quality assessment and data extraction of the included trials.

The first update was initiated and drafted by Martyn Parker. Helen Handoll located the review studies, checked data entry, contacted some of the trialists and critically rewrote and completed the first draft. All three reviewers named above performed independent quality assessment and data extraction of newly included trial materials.

The second update was initiated by Martyn Parker (MP). Helen Handoll (HH) and MP located the review studies and contacted some of the trialists. HH, MP and Catherine Sherrington (CS) performed independent study selection, and quality assessment and data extraction of newly included trial materials. HH completed the first draft, which was checked and corrected by the other two reviewers.

The third update was initiated by HH. CS and HH located the review studies and contacted trialists. HH, MP and CS performed independent study selection. HH and either MP or CS performed independent quality assessment and data extraction of newly included trial materials. HH completed the first draft, which was checked and corrected by the other two reviewers.

All three named reviewers are guarantors of the review.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • University of Teesside, Middlesbrough, UK.

  • Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, UK.

  • Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute, Sydney, Australia.

External sources

  • National Health and Medical Research Council, Prevention of Older Peoples' Injuries Health Research Partnership Program, Australia.

Declarations of interest

None known. However, as Catherine Sherrington is an active investigator in several randomised trials in this area, assessment of eligibility of these trials and quality assessment of the three included trials was done independently by the other two reviewers. Independent data extraction and entry into RevMan, presentation and interpretation of these three trials were also performed.

Acknowledgements

We thank the following for their comments and help at editorial review of the first version: Prof William Gillespie, Prof Harley Gray (external referee: review only), Mr Peter Herbison (review only), Prof James Hutchison (external referee: protocol only), Prof Rajan Madhok, Ms Leeann Morton, Prof Gordon Murray (protocol only), Mr Anthony Pohl (external referee: review only) and Prof Marc Swiontkowski. We also thank Ms Hilda Bastian for her help with the Synopsis.

For the first update, we thank Mrs Lesley Gillespie for her help with the search strategy and trial retrieval, and Ms Leeann Morton and Prof William Gillespie for their help at editorial review.

We thank Dr Yvonne Dynan for her contribution to the first two versions of the review and Ms Pernille Jensen for checking over a study report in Danish.

Helen Handoll's work on the first two versions of the review was supported by the Chief Scientist Office, Department of Health, The Scottish Office, UK.

For the second update, we thank Mrs Lesley Gillespie for her help with the search strategy and trial retrieval, Ms Judy Sherrington for proof reading, Prof William Gillespie, Mr Peter Herbison, Ms Janet Wale and Meghan Donaldson (external referee) for their feedback and help at editorial review.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2022 Sep 07

Interventions for improving mobility after hip fracture surgery in adults

Review

Nicola J Fairhall, Suzanne M Dyer, Jenson CS Mak, Joanna Diong, Wing S Kwok, Catherine Sherrington

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001704.pub5

2011 Mar 16

Interventions for improving mobility after hip fracture surgery in adults

Review

Helen HG Handoll, Catherine Sherrington, Jenson CS Mak

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001704.pub4

2007 Jan 24

Mobilisation strategies after hip fracture surgery in adults

Review

Helen HG Handoll, Catherine Sherrington

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001704.pub3

2004 Oct 18

Mobilisation strategies after hip fracture surgery in adults

Review

Helen HG Handoll, Catherine Sherrington, Martyn J Parker

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001704.pub2

2003 Jan 20

Mobilisation strategies after hip fracture surgery in adults

Review

Helen HG Handoll, Martyn J Parker, Catherine Sherrington

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001704

Notes

This review is an expansion of the scope of the review described in the title of the protocol 'Early weight bearing and mobilisation after internal fixation of intracapsular proximal femoral fractures in adults'.

The main changes for the first update of this review, published Issue 2, 2002, were:
(1) Date of search for trials was extended to February 2002
(2) One new study (Mitchell 2001) of quadriceps muscle training was included
(3) Of the other seven newly identified studies, one was excluded, two were placed in 'Ongoing Studies' and four were placed in 'Studies Awaiting Assessment'
(4) There was no substantive change to the conclusions of the review

The main changes for the second update of this review, published Issue 1, 2003, were:
(1) Date of search for trials was extended to October 2002.
(2) One new study (Lauridsen 2002) evaluating intensive physiotherapy was included.
(3) Two newly identified studies were excluded (Barber 2002; Hauer 2002).
(4) Additional details/results were added from the full publication of Lamb 2002, formerly Lamb 1998.
(5) Availability of the full publication of Kuisma 2002, formerly Johnstone 1999, resulted in its exclusion.
(6) The identification of 3 more ongoing trials (Cameron 2004; Crotty 2003; Sherrington 2002).
(7) There was no substantive change to the conclusions of the review.

The main changes for the third update of this review, published Issue 4, 2004, are listed under 'Most recent changes'. As planned, the scope of the review has been expanded to cover interventions aimed at initiating and enhancing mobilisation throughout the whole rehabilitation process. Due to a potential conflict of interest resulting from the inclusion in this update of three trials for which Catherine Sherrington was the lead investigator, Helen Handoll has taken over the role of contact reviewer.

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.