Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Comparison 1 Early versus delayed weight bearing, Outcome 1 Mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Early versus delayed weight bearing, Outcome 1 Mortality.

Comparison 1 Early versus delayed weight bearing, Outcome 2 Non‐union (fixation failure).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Early versus delayed weight bearing, Outcome 2 Non‐union (fixation failure).

Comparison 1 Early versus delayed weight bearing, Outcome 3 Avascular necrosis.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Early versus delayed weight bearing, Outcome 3 Avascular necrosis.

Comparison 1 Early versus delayed weight bearing, Outcome 4 Unfavourable outcome (death, failure or infection).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Early versus delayed weight bearing, Outcome 4 Unfavourable outcome (death, failure or infection).

Comparison 2 Intensive versus usual physiotherapy, Outcome 1 Adductor muscle strength (kp) at 9 weeks.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Intensive versus usual physiotherapy, Outcome 1 Adductor muscle strength (kp) at 9 weeks.

Comparison 2 Intensive versus usual physiotherapy, Outcome 2 Orthopaedic complication (as reason for withdrawal from trial).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Intensive versus usual physiotherapy, Outcome 2 Orthopaedic complication (as reason for withdrawal from trial).

Comparison 2 Intensive versus usual physiotherapy, Outcome 3 Length of hospital stay (days).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Intensive versus usual physiotherapy, Outcome 3 Length of hospital stay (days).

Comparison 2 Intensive versus usual physiotherapy, Outcome 4 Withdrawal from trial by patient.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Intensive versus usual physiotherapy, Outcome 4 Withdrawal from trial by patient.

Comparison 2 Intensive versus usual physiotherapy, Outcome 5 Non‐completion of training programme.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Intensive versus usual physiotherapy, Outcome 5 Non‐completion of training programme.

Comparison 3 Weight‐bearing exercises versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises, Outcome 1 Unable to walk at all or without two sticks or a frame.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Weight‐bearing exercises versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises, Outcome 1 Unable to walk at all or without two sticks or a frame.

Comparison 3 Weight‐bearing exercises versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises, Outcome 2 Unable to do a lateral step‐up unsupported or with one hand alone.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Weight‐bearing exercises versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises, Outcome 2 Unable to do a lateral step‐up unsupported or with one hand alone.

Comparison 3 Weight‐bearing exercises versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises, Outcome 3 Gait parameters.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Weight‐bearing exercises versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises, Outcome 3 Gait parameters.

Comparison 3 Weight‐bearing exercises versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises, Outcome 4 Physical Performance and Mobility Examination score (0:failure to 12:top score).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Weight‐bearing exercises versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises, Outcome 4 Physical Performance and Mobility Examination score (0:failure to 12:top score).

Comparison 3 Weight‐bearing exercises versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises, Outcome 5 Strength measures (newtons).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 Weight‐bearing exercises versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises, Outcome 5 Strength measures (newtons).

Comparison 3 Weight‐bearing exercises versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises, Outcome 6 Balance.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 Weight‐bearing exercises versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises, Outcome 6 Balance.

Comparison 3 Weight‐bearing exercises versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises, Outcome 7 Subjective rating of pain, fall risk, balance, sleep quality and general health.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3 Weight‐bearing exercises versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises, Outcome 7 Subjective rating of pain, fall risk, balance, sleep quality and general health.

Comparison 3 Weight‐bearing exercises versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises, Outcome 8 Fracture fixation problems.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.8

Comparison 3 Weight‐bearing exercises versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises, Outcome 8 Fracture fixation problems.

Comparison 3 Weight‐bearing exercises versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises, Outcome 9 Total length of stay in hospital (days).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.9

Comparison 3 Weight‐bearing exercises versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises, Outcome 9 Total length of stay in hospital (days).

Comparison 3 Weight‐bearing exercises versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises, Outcome 10 Participant's perception of exercise programmes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.10

Comparison 3 Weight‐bearing exercises versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises, Outcome 10 Participant's perception of exercise programmes.

Comparison 4 Quadriceps training programme, Outcome 1 Leg extensor power (watts).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Quadriceps training programme, Outcome 1 Leg extensor power (watts).

Comparison 4 Quadriceps training programme, Outcome 2 Mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Quadriceps training programme, Outcome 2 Mortality.

Comparison 5 Treadmill gait training versus conventional gait training, Outcome 1 Failure to regain pre‐fracture mobility.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Treadmill gait training versus conventional gait training, Outcome 1 Failure to regain pre‐fracture mobility.

Comparison 5 Treadmill gait training versus conventional gait training, Outcome 2 Gait velocity (metres/minute).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Treadmill gait training versus conventional gait training, Outcome 2 Gait velocity (metres/minute).

Comparison 6 Neuromuscular stimulation versus placebo, Outcome 1 Failure to regain pre‐fracture mobility.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Neuromuscular stimulation versus placebo, Outcome 1 Failure to regain pre‐fracture mobility.

Comparison 6 Neuromuscular stimulation versus placebo, Outcome 2 Unable to 'tandem stand' (postural instability).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 Neuromuscular stimulation versus placebo, Outcome 2 Unable to 'tandem stand' (postural instability).

Comparison 6 Neuromuscular stimulation versus placebo, Outcome 3 Gait velocity (walking speed over 15.25 metres) (metres/second).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6 Neuromuscular stimulation versus placebo, Outcome 3 Gait velocity (walking speed over 15.25 metres) (metres/second).

Comparison 6 Neuromuscular stimulation versus placebo, Outcome 4 Leg extensor power (watts/kilogram).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6 Neuromuscular stimulation versus placebo, Outcome 4 Leg extensor power (watts/kilogram).

Comparison 6 Neuromuscular stimulation versus placebo, Outcome 5 Pain (6 point scale: 6 = constant severe pain).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.5

Comparison 6 Neuromuscular stimulation versus placebo, Outcome 5 Pain (6 point scale: 6 = constant severe pain).

Comparison 7 Intensive physical training versus placebo activities (started post‐discharge), Outcome 1 Gait parameters.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Intensive physical training versus placebo activities (started post‐discharge), Outcome 1 Gait parameters.

Comparison 7 Intensive physical training versus placebo activities (started post‐discharge), Outcome 2 Tinetti's POMA (Performance orientated mobility assessment).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 Intensive physical training versus placebo activities (started post‐discharge), Outcome 2 Tinetti's POMA (Performance orientated mobility assessment).

Comparison 7 Intensive physical training versus placebo activities (started post‐discharge), Outcome 3 Loss of social independence.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7 Intensive physical training versus placebo activities (started post‐discharge), Outcome 3 Loss of social independence.

Comparison 7 Intensive physical training versus placebo activities (started post‐discharge), Outcome 4 Functional performance measures.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7 Intensive physical training versus placebo activities (started post‐discharge), Outcome 4 Functional performance measures.

Comparison 7 Intensive physical training versus placebo activities (started post‐discharge), Outcome 5 Functional performance tests.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.5

Comparison 7 Intensive physical training versus placebo activities (started post‐discharge), Outcome 5 Functional performance tests.

Comparison 7 Intensive physical training versus placebo activities (started post‐discharge), Outcome 6 Strength measures.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.6

Comparison 7 Intensive physical training versus placebo activities (started post‐discharge), Outcome 6 Strength measures.

Comparison 7 Intensive physical training versus placebo activities (started post‐discharge), Outcome 7 Balance.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.7

Comparison 7 Intensive physical training versus placebo activities (started post‐discharge), Outcome 7 Balance.

Comparison 7 Intensive physical training versus placebo activities (started post‐discharge), Outcome 8 Subjective/emotional state assessment, falls, balance and general.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.8

Comparison 7 Intensive physical training versus placebo activities (started post‐discharge), Outcome 8 Subjective/emotional state assessment, falls, balance and general.

Comparison 7 Intensive physical training versus placebo activities (started post‐discharge), Outcome 9 Adherence.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.9

Comparison 7 Intensive physical training versus placebo activities (started post‐discharge), Outcome 9 Adherence.

Comparison 8 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 1 Mobility.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 1 Mobility.

Comparison 8 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 2 Gait parameters.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.2

Comparison 8 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 2 Gait parameters.

Comparison 8 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 3 Physical Performance and Mobility Examination score (0:failure to 12:top score).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.3

Comparison 8 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 3 Physical Performance and Mobility Examination score (0:failure to 12:top score).

Comparison 8 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 4 Functional performance tests.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.4

Comparison 8 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 4 Functional performance tests.

Comparison 8 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 5 Strength measures (newtons).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.5

Comparison 8 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 5 Strength measures (newtons).

Comparison 8 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 6 Balance.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.6

Comparison 8 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 6 Balance.

Comparison 8 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 7 Subjective rating of pain, fall risk, balance, sleep quality and general health.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.7

Comparison 8 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 7 Subjective rating of pain, fall risk, balance, sleep quality and general health.

Comparison 8 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 8 Fell at least once during intervention period (4 months).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.8

Comparison 8 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 8 Fell at least once during intervention period (4 months).

Comparison 8 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 9 Mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.9

Comparison 8 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 9 Mortality.

Comparison 9 Home‐based weight bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 1 Mobility.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 9.1

Comparison 9 Home‐based weight bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 1 Mobility.

Comparison 9 Home‐based weight bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 2 Gait parameters.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 9.2

Comparison 9 Home‐based weight bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 2 Gait parameters.

Comparison 9 Home‐based weight bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 3 Physical Performance and Mobility Examination score (0:failure to 12:top score).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 9.3

Comparison 9 Home‐based weight bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 3 Physical Performance and Mobility Examination score (0:failure to 12:top score).

Comparison 9 Home‐based weight bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 4 Functional performance tests.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 9.4

Comparison 9 Home‐based weight bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 4 Functional performance tests.

Comparison 9 Home‐based weight bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 5 Strength measures (newtons).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 9.5

Comparison 9 Home‐based weight bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 5 Strength measures (newtons).

Comparison 9 Home‐based weight bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 6 Balance.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 9.6

Comparison 9 Home‐based weight bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 6 Balance.

Comparison 9 Home‐based weight bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 7 Subjective rating of pain, fall risk, balance, sleep quality and general health.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 9.7

Comparison 9 Home‐based weight bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 7 Subjective rating of pain, fall risk, balance, sleep quality and general health.

Comparison 9 Home‐based weight bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 8 Fell at least once during intervention period (4 months).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 9.8

Comparison 9 Home‐based weight bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 8 Fell at least once during intervention period (4 months).

Comparison 9 Home‐based weight bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 9 Mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 9.9

Comparison 9 Home‐based weight bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control, Outcome 9 Mortality.

Comparison 10 Home‐based non‐weight bearing exercises programme (started 22 at weeks) versus control, Outcome 1 Mobility.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.1

Comparison 10 Home‐based non‐weight bearing exercises programme (started 22 at weeks) versus control, Outcome 1 Mobility.

Comparison 10 Home‐based non‐weight bearing exercises programme (started 22 at weeks) versus control, Outcome 2 Gait parameters.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.2

Comparison 10 Home‐based non‐weight bearing exercises programme (started 22 at weeks) versus control, Outcome 2 Gait parameters.

Comparison 10 Home‐based non‐weight bearing exercises programme (started 22 at weeks) versus control, Outcome 3 Physical Performance and Mobility Examination score (0:failure to 12:top score).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.3

Comparison 10 Home‐based non‐weight bearing exercises programme (started 22 at weeks) versus control, Outcome 3 Physical Performance and Mobility Examination score (0:failure to 12:top score).

Comparison 10 Home‐based non‐weight bearing exercises programme (started 22 at weeks) versus control, Outcome 4 Functional performance tests.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.4

Comparison 10 Home‐based non‐weight bearing exercises programme (started 22 at weeks) versus control, Outcome 4 Functional performance tests.

Comparison 10 Home‐based non‐weight bearing exercises programme (started 22 at weeks) versus control, Outcome 5 Strength measures (newtons).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.5

Comparison 10 Home‐based non‐weight bearing exercises programme (started 22 at weeks) versus control, Outcome 5 Strength measures (newtons).

Comparison 10 Home‐based non‐weight bearing exercises programme (started 22 at weeks) versus control, Outcome 6 Balance.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.6

Comparison 10 Home‐based non‐weight bearing exercises programme (started 22 at weeks) versus control, Outcome 6 Balance.

Comparison 10 Home‐based non‐weight bearing exercises programme (started 22 at weeks) versus control, Outcome 7 Subjective rating of pain, fall risk, balance, sleep quality and general health.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.7

Comparison 10 Home‐based non‐weight bearing exercises programme (started 22 at weeks) versus control, Outcome 7 Subjective rating of pain, fall risk, balance, sleep quality and general health.

Comparison 10 Home‐based non‐weight bearing exercises programme (started 22 at weeks) versus control, Outcome 8 Fell at least once during intervention period (4 months).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.8

Comparison 10 Home‐based non‐weight bearing exercises programme (started 22 at weeks) versus control, Outcome 8 Fell at least once during intervention period (4 months).

Comparison 10 Home‐based non‐weight bearing exercises programme (started 22 at weeks) versus control, Outcome 9 Mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.9

Comparison 10 Home‐based non‐weight bearing exercises programme (started 22 at weeks) versus control, Outcome 9 Mortality.

Comparison 11 Home‐based weight bearing versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks), Outcome 1 Mobility.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.1

Comparison 11 Home‐based weight bearing versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks), Outcome 1 Mobility.

Comparison 11 Home‐based weight bearing versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks), Outcome 2 Gait parameters.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.2

Comparison 11 Home‐based weight bearing versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks), Outcome 2 Gait parameters.

Comparison 11 Home‐based weight bearing versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks), Outcome 3 Physical Performance and Mobility Examination score (0:failure to 12:top score).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.3

Comparison 11 Home‐based weight bearing versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks), Outcome 3 Physical Performance and Mobility Examination score (0:failure to 12:top score).

Comparison 11 Home‐based weight bearing versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks), Outcome 4 Functional performance tests.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.4

Comparison 11 Home‐based weight bearing versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks), Outcome 4 Functional performance tests.

Comparison 11 Home‐based weight bearing versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks), Outcome 5 Strength measures (newtons).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.5

Comparison 11 Home‐based weight bearing versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks), Outcome 5 Strength measures (newtons).

Comparison 11 Home‐based weight bearing versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks), Outcome 6 Balance.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.6

Comparison 11 Home‐based weight bearing versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks), Outcome 6 Balance.

Comparison 11 Home‐based weight bearing versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks), Outcome 7 Subjective rating of pain, fall risk, balance, sleep quality and general health.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.7

Comparison 11 Home‐based weight bearing versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks), Outcome 7 Subjective rating of pain, fall risk, balance, sleep quality and general health.

Comparison 11 Home‐based weight bearing versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks), Outcome 8 Fell at least once during intervention period (4 months).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.8

Comparison 11 Home‐based weight bearing versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks), Outcome 8 Fell at least once during intervention period (4 months).

Comparison 11 Home‐based weight bearing versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks), Outcome 9 Mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.9

Comparison 11 Home‐based weight bearing versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks), Outcome 9 Mortality.

Comparison 11 Home‐based weight bearing versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks), Outcome 10 Participant's participation in and perception of exercise programmes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.10

Comparison 11 Home‐based weight bearing versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks), Outcome 10 Participant's participation in and perception of exercise programmes.

Comparison 12 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 7 months), Outcome 1 Inability to perform weight‐bearing test without hand support.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.1

Comparison 12 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 7 months), Outcome 1 Inability to perform weight‐bearing test without hand support.

Comparison 12 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 7 months), Outcome 2 Gait parameters.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.2

Comparison 12 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 7 months), Outcome 2 Gait parameters.

Comparison 12 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 7 months), Outcome 3 Strength (kg).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.3

Comparison 12 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 7 months), Outcome 3 Strength (kg).

Comparison 12 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 7 months), Outcome 4 Balance (postural control).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.4

Comparison 12 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 7 months), Outcome 4 Balance (postural control).

Comparison 12 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 7 months), Outcome 5 Subjective rating of balance and fall risk.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.5

Comparison 12 Home‐based exercises programme (started at 7 months), Outcome 5 Subjective rating of balance and fall risk.

Table 1. Types of outcome measures sought in versions of the review before Issue 4, 2004

Outcomes sought

(1) Fracture healing complications.
(a) Surgical complications of fixation within the follow‐up period of the study. This includes non‐union of the fracture (the definition of non‐union is that used within each individual study, and this outcome includes early re‐displacement of the fracture), avascular necrosis and other complications as detailed in each individual study.
(b) Re‐operation (within the follow‐up period of the study).

(2) Post‐operative course and complications.
(a) Any medical complication as detailed in each individual study. This includes pneumonia, thromboembolic complications (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) and other complications as listed.
(b) Length of hospital stay (in days).
(c) Time until mobilisation and regain of muscle power.
(d) Post‐operative walking ability and gait assessment.

(3) Anatomical restoration.
(a) Shortening (more than 2 centimetres).
(b) Varus deformity.
(c) External rotation deformity (more than 20 degrees).

(4) Final outcome measures.
(a) Mortality (within the follow‐up period of the study).
(b) Pain (persistent pain at the final follow‐up assessment).
(c) Return to living at home.
(d) Return of mobility, use of walking aids.
(e) Other functional outcomes as listed in each study.
(f) Health related quality of life measures.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Types of outcome measures sought in versions of the review before Issue 4, 2004
Table 2. Search strategy for EMBASE (OVID‐WEB)

EMBASE

1. exp Hip Fracture/
2. ((hip$ or ((femur$ or femoral$) adj3 (neck or proximal))) fracture$).tw.
3. or/1‐2
4. exp Randomized Controlled trial/
5. exp Double Blind Procedure/
6. exp Single Blind Procedure/
7. exp Crossover Procedure/
8. Controlled Study/
9. or/4‐8

10. ((clinical or controlled or comparative or placebo or prospective$ or randomi#ed) adj3 (trial or study)).tw.
11. (random$ adj7 (allocat$ or allot$ or assign$ or basis$ or divid$ or order$)).tw.
12. ((singl$ or doubl$ or trebl$ or tripl$) adj7 (blind$ or mask$)).tw.
13. (cross?over$ or (cross adj1 over$)).tw.
14. ((allocat$ or allot$ or assign$ or divid$) adj3 (condition$ or experiment$ or intervention$ or treatment$ or therap$ or control$ or group$)).tw.
15. or/10‐14
16. or/9,15
17. limit 16 to human
18. and/3,17

Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. Search strategy for EMBASE (OVID‐WEB)
Comparison 1. Early versus delayed weight bearing

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mortality Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 1 year

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 3 years

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Non‐union (fixation failure) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 1 year

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 3 years

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Avascular necrosis Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 1 year

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 3 years

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Unfavourable outcome (death, failure or infection) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 1 year

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 3 years

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Early versus delayed weight bearing
Comparison 2. Intensive versus usual physiotherapy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Adductor muscle strength (kp) at 9 weeks Show forest plot

1

87

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.20 [‐0.79, 3.19]

1.1 Prosthesis

1

39

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.80 [‐1.15, 4.75]

1.2 Internal fixation

1

48

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.00, 3.40]

2 Orthopaedic complication (as reason for withdrawal from trial) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Length of hospital stay (days) Show forest plot

1

87

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.76 [‐11.92, 6.40]

3.1 Prosthesis

1

39

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.10 [‐14.74, 10.54]

3.2 Internal fixation

1

48

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.5 [‐16.80, 9.80]

4 Withdrawal from trial by patient Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5 Non‐completion of training programme Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Intensive versus usual physiotherapy
Comparison 3. Weight‐bearing exercises versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Unable to walk at all or without two sticks or a frame Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Unable to walk at all

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Unable to walk unaided or with one stick alone

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Unable to do a lateral step‐up unsupported or with one hand alone Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Fractured leg

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 Non‐fractured leg

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Gait parameters Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 Velocity (m/sec)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 Steps per second

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Physical Performance and Mobility Examination score (0:failure to 12:top score) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5 Strength measures (newtons) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 Hip abduction fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.2 Hip abduction non‐fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.3 Hip flexion fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.4 Hip flexion non‐fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.5 Knee extension fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.6 Knee extension non‐fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 Functional reach distance (cm)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.2 Step test fractured leg (reps)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.3 Step test non‐fractured leg (reps)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Subjective rating of pain, fall risk, balance, sleep quality and general health Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7.1 Serious activity‐inhibiting pain

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.2 Considered themselves as at moderate or high risk of falling

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.3 Unsteady balance

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.4 Sleep quality: 'OK' at most

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.5 Only good or worse general health

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 Fracture fixation problems Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9 Total length of stay in hospital (days) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

10 Participant's perception of exercise programmes Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

10.1 Had difficulty with exercises

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10.2 Experienced moderate or marked pain during exercise

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10.3 Exercises not considered even of moderate usefulness

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Weight‐bearing exercises versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises
Comparison 4. Quadriceps training programme

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Leg extensor power (watts) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Fractured leg at 6 weeks

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Non‐fractured leg at 6 weeks

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.3 Fractured leg at 16 weeks

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.4 Non‐fractured leg at 16 weeks

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Mortality Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Quadriceps training programme
Comparison 5. Treadmill gait training versus conventional gait training

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Failure to regain pre‐fracture mobility Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Gait velocity (metres/minute) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 5. Treadmill gait training versus conventional gait training
Comparison 6. Neuromuscular stimulation versus placebo

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Failure to regain pre‐fracture mobility Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 At 7 weeks

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 At 13 weeks

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Unable to 'tandem stand' (postural instability) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 At 7 weeks

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 At 13 weeks

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Gait velocity (walking speed over 15.25 metres) (metres/second) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 At 7 weeks

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 At 13 weeks

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Leg extensor power (watts/kilogram) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Fractured leg at 7 weeks

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 Non‐fractured leg at 7 weeks

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.3 Fractured leg at 13 weeks

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.4 Non‐fractured leg at 13 weeks

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Pain (6 point scale: 6 = constant severe pain) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 At 7 weeks

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.2 At 13 weeks

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 6. Neuromuscular stimulation versus placebo
Comparison 7. Intensive physical training versus placebo activities (started post‐discharge)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Gait parameters Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Walking velocity (m/sec)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Box step fractured leg (cm)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.3 Box step non‐fractured leg (cm)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Tinetti's POMA (Performance orientated mobility assessment) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Overall POMA (0 to 30. higher = better)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 POMA part 1 (balance: 0 to 15)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.3 POMA part 2 (gait: 0 to 15)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Loss of social independence Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Functional performance measures Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Barthel's ADL (activities of daily living) (0 to 100: fully independent)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 Lawton's IADL (instrumental activities of daily living) (0 to 8: fully competent)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.3 Total activity

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.4 'Sports' activities

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.5 Household activities

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Functional performance tests Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 Timed up‐and‐go (seconds)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.2 Chair rise (seconds)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.3 Stair rise (seconds)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Strength measures Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 Leg‐press fractured side (kg)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.2 Leg‐press non‐fractured side (kg)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.3 Leg extensor fractured side (Newtons)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.4 Leg extensor fractured side (Newtons)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.5 Leg flexor fractured side (Newtons)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.6 Leg flexor non‐fractured side (Newtons)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.7 Ankle plantar flexion fractured side (Newtons)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.8 Ankle plantar flexion non‐fractured side (Newtons)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.9 Hand grip both hands (KPa)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7.1 Balance score (0 to 20 (20 successful tests))

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.2 Functional reach (cm)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 Subjective/emotional state assessment, falls, balance and general Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8.1 Fall Handicap Inventory (0 to 72: highest disability)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8.2 Fear of falling

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8.3 Walking unsteadiness

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8.4 Geriatric Depression Scale (0 to 30: very depressed)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9 Adherence Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 7. Intensive physical training versus placebo activities (started post‐discharge)
Comparison 8. Home‐based exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mobility Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Cannot walk indoors unaided

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Cannot walk outdoors unaided

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.3 Does not walk for exercise

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.4 Unable to walk 800m

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.5 Unable to climb flight of stairs

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.6 Unable to do heavy housework

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.7 Does not participate in sports

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Gait parameters Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Time to walk 6m at a comfortable pace (s) (Effect direction: Favours exercises: Favours control)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 Steps taken to walk 6m at a comfortable pace (Effect direction: Favours control: Favours exercises)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.3 Time to walk 6m at a fast pace (s) (Effect direction: Favours exercises: Favours control)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.4 Steps taken to walk 6m at a comfortable pace (Effect direction: Favours control: Favours exercises)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Physical Performance and Mobility Examination score (0:failure to 12:top score) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Functional performance tests Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Timed sit‐to‐stand x5 (seconds)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 Timed supine‐to‐sit (seconds)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Strength measures (newtons) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 Hip abduction fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.2 Hip abduction non‐fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.3 Hip flexion fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.4 Hip flexion non‐fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.5 Knee extension fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.6 Knee extension non‐fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 Step test fractured leg (steps) (Effect direction: Favours control: Favours exercises)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.2 Step test non‐fractured leg (steps) (Effect direction: Favours control: Favours exercises)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.3 Functional reach (cm) (Effect direction: Favours control: Favours exercises)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.4 Sway distance floor (mm) (Effect direction: Favours exercises: Favours control)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.5 Sway distance foam (mm) (Effect direction: Favours exercises: Favours control)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Subjective rating of pain, fall risk, balance, sleep quality and general health Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7.1 Moderate or worse pain

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.2 Considered themselves as at moderate or high risk of falling

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.3 Unsteady balance

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.4 Sleep quality: not good

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.5 Only good or worse general health

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 Fell at least once during intervention period (4 months) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9 Mortality Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 8. Home‐based exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control
Comparison 9. Home‐based weight bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mobility Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Cannot walk indoors unaided

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Cannot walk outdoors unaided

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.3 Does not walk for exercise

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.4 Unable to walk 800m

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.5 Unable to climb flight of stairs

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.6 Unable to do heavy housework

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.7 Does not participate in sports

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Gait parameters Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Time to walk 6m at a comfortable pace (s) (Effect direction: Favours exercises: Favours control)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 Steps taken to walk 6m at a comfortable pace (Effect direction: Favours control: Favours exercises)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.3 Time to walk 6m at a fast pace (s) (Effect direction: Favours exercises: Favours control)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.4 Steps taken to walk 6m at a comfortable pace (Effect direction: Favours control: Favours exercises)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Physical Performance and Mobility Examination score (0:failure to 12:top score) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Functional performance tests Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Timed sit‐to‐stand x5 (seconds)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 Timed supine‐to‐sit (seconds)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Strength measures (newtons) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 Hip abduction fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.2 Hip abduction non‐fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.3 Hip flexion fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.4 Hip flexion non‐fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.5 Knee extension fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.6 Knee extension non‐fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 Step test fractured leg (steps) (Effect direction: Favours control: Favours exercises)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.2 Step test non‐fractured leg (steps) (Effect direction: Favours control: Favours exercises)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.3 Functional reach (cm) (Effect direction: Favours control: Favours exercises)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.4 Sway distance floor (mm) (Effect direction: Favours exercises: Favours control)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.5 Sway distance foam (mm) (Effect direction: Favours exercises: Favours control)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Subjective rating of pain, fall risk, balance, sleep quality and general health Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7.1 Moderate or worse pain

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.2 Considered themselves as at moderate or high risk of falling

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.3 Unsteady balance

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.4 Sleep quality: not good

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.5 Only good or worse general health

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 Fell at least once during intervention period (4 months) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9 Mortality Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 9. Home‐based weight bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks) versus control
Comparison 10. Home‐based non‐weight bearing exercises programme (started 22 at weeks) versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mobility Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Cannot walk indoors unaided

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Cannot walk outdoors unaided

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.3 Does not walk for exercise

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.4 Unable to walk 800m

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.5 Unable to climb flight of stairs

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.6 Unable to do heavy housework

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.7 Does not participate in sports

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Gait parameters Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Time to walk 6m at a comfortable pace (s) (Effect direction: Favours exercises: Favours control)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 Steps taken to walk 6m at a comfortable pace (Effect direction: Favours control: Favours exercises)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.3 Time to walk 6m at a fast pace (s) (Effect direction: Favours exercises: Favours control)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.4 Steps taken to walk 6m at a comfortable pace (Effect direction: Favours control: Favours exercises)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Physical Performance and Mobility Examination score (0:failure to 12:top score) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Functional performance tests Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Timed sit‐to‐stand x5 (seconds)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 Timed supine‐to‐sit (seconds)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Strength measures (newtons) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 Hip abduction fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.2 Hip abduction non‐fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.3 Hip flexion fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.4 Hip flexion non‐fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.5 Knee extension fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.6 Knee extension non‐fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 Step test fractured leg (steps) (Effect direction: Favours control: Favours exercises)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.2 Step test non‐fractured leg (steps) (Effect direction: Favours control: Favours exercises)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.3 Functional reach (cm) (Effect direction: Favours control: Favours exercises)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.4 Sway distance floor (mm) (Effect direction: Favours exercises: Favours control)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.5 Sway distance foam (mm) (Effect direction: Favours exercises: Favours control)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Subjective rating of pain, fall risk, balance, sleep quality and general health Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7.1 Moderate or worse pain

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.2 Considered themselves as at moderate or high risk of falling

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.3 Unsteady balance

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.4 Sleep quality: not good

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.5 Only good or worse general health

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 Fell at least once during intervention period (4 months) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9 Mortality Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 10. Home‐based non‐weight bearing exercises programme (started 22 at weeks) versus control
Comparison 11. Home‐based weight bearing versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mobility Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Cannot walk indoors unaided

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Cannot walk outdoors unaided

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.3 Does not walk for exercise

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.4 Unable to walk 800m

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.5 Unable to climb flight of stairs

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.6 Unable to do heavy housework

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.7 Does not participate in sports

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Gait parameters Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Time to walk 6m at a comfortable pace (s) (Effect direction: Favours weight‐bear: Favours non‐w‐bear)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 Steps taken to walk 6m at a comfortable pace (Effect direction: Favours non‐w‐bear: Favours weight‐bear)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.3 Time to walk 6m at a fast pace (s) (Effect direction: Favours weight‐bear: Favours non‐w‐bear)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.4 Steps taken to walk 6m at a comfortable pace (Effect direction: Favours non‐w‐bear: Favours weight‐bear)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Physical Performance and Mobility Examination score (0:failure to 12:top score) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Functional performance tests Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Timed sit‐to‐stand x5 (seconds)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 Timed supine‐to‐sit (seconds)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Strength measures (newtons) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 Hip abduction fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.2 Hip abduction non‐fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.3 Hip flexion fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.4 Hip flexion non‐fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.5 Knee extension fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.6 Knee extension non‐fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 Step test fractured leg (steps) (Effect direction: Favours non‐w‐bear: Favours weight‐bear)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.2 Step test non‐fractured leg (steps) (Effect direction: Favours non‐w‐bear: Favours weigh‐bear)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.3 Functional reach (cm) (Effect direction: Favours non‐w‐bear: Favours weight‐bear)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.4 Sway distance floor (mm) (Effect direction: Favours weight‐bear: Favours non‐w‐bear)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.5 Sway distance foam (mm) (Effect direction: Favours weight‐bear: Favours non‐w‐bear)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Subjective rating of pain, fall risk, balance, sleep quality and general health Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7.1 Moderate or worse pain

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.2 Considered themselves as at moderate or high risk of falling

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.3 Unsteady balance

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.4 Sleep quality: not good

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.5 Only good or worse general health

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 Fell at least once during intervention period (4 months) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9 Mortality Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

10 Participant's participation in and perception of exercise programmes Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

10.1 Had difficulty with exercises

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10.2 Experienced moderate or marked pain during exercise

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10.3 Exercises not considered even of moderate usefulness

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10.4 Had stopped exercises altogether (by 4 months)

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10.5 Exercises done less than 3 times weekly or not at all (by 4 months)

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 11. Home‐based weight bearing versus non‐weight‐bearing exercises programme (started at 22 weeks)
Comparison 12. Home‐based exercises programme (started at 7 months)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Inability to perform weight‐bearing test without hand support Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Use of 5.5 cm block: fractured leg

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Use of 5.5 cm block: non‐fractured leg

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.3 Use of 10.5 cm block: fractured leg

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.4 Use of 10.5 cm block: fractured leg

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Gait parameters Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Velocity (m/sec)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 Cadence: steps/minute

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Strength (kg) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 Quadriceps fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 Quadriceps non‐fractured leg

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Balance (postural control) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Sway on floor (mm) (Effect direction: Favours exercises: Favours control)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 Sway on foam (mm) (Effect direction: Favours exercises: Favours control)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.3 Functional reach (cm) (Effect direction: Favours control: Favours exercises)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Subjective rating of balance and fall risk Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 Balance: not always steady

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.2 Self‐perceived moderate or high risk of fall

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 12. Home‐based exercises programme (started at 7 months)