Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22145912›Full record

Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2011

Promoting mobility after hip fracture (ProMo): study protocol and selected baseline results of a year-long randomized controlled trial among community-dwelling older people.

Sarianna Sipilä, Anu Salpakoski, Johanna Edgren, Ari Heinonen, Markku A Kauppinen, Marja Arkela-Kautiainen, Sanna E Sihvonen, Maija Pesola, Taina Rantanen, Mauri Kallinen

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Interventions for improving mobility after hip fracture surgery in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for older people with hip fractures.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Sarianna SipiläGerontology Research Centre, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland. sarianna.sipila@jyu.fi
Anu Salpakoski
Johanna Edgren
Ari Heinonen
Markku A Kauppinen
Marja Arkela-Kautiainen
Sanna E Sihvonen
Maija Pesola
Taina Rantanen
Mauri Kallinen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo cope at their homes, community-dwelling older people surviving a hip fracture need a sufficient amount of functional ability and mobility. There is a lack of evidence on the best practices supporting recovery after hip fracture. The purpose of this article is to describe the design, intervention and demographic baseline results of a study investigating the effects of a rehabilitation program aiming to restore mobility and functional capacity among community-dwelling participants after hip fracture. METHODS/

designPopulation-based sample of over 60-year-old community-dwelling men and women operated for hip fracture (n = 81, mean age 79 years, 78% were women) participated in this study and were randomly allocated into control (Standard Care) and ProMo intervention groups on average 10 weeks post fracture and 6 weeks after discharged to home. Standard Care included written home exercise program with 5-7 exercises for lower limbs. Of all participants, 12 got a referral to physiotherapy. After discharged to home, only 50% adhered to Standard Care. None of the participants were followed-up for Standard Care or mobility recovery. ProMo-intervention included Standard Care and a year-long program including evaluation/modification of environmental hazards, guidance for safe walking, pain management, progressive home exercise program and physical activity counseling. Measurements included a comprehensive battery of laboratory tests and self-report on mobility limitation, disability, physical functional capacity and health as well as assessments for the key prerequisites for mobility, disability and functional capacity. All assessments were performed blinded at the research laboratory. No significant differences were observed between intervention and control groups in any of the demographic variables. DISCUSSION: Ten weeks post hip fracture only half of the participants were compliant to Standard Care. No follow-up for Standard Care or mobility recovery occurred. There is a need for rehabilitation and follow-up for mobility recovery after hip fracture. However, the effectiveness of the ProMo program can only be assessed at the end of the study.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN53680197.

Indexed as

Independent LivingPhysical Therapy ModalitiesResearch DesignAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsAgingBiomechanical PhenomenaDisability EvaluationFemaleFinlandHip FracturesHip JointHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID22145912
PMCPMC3295703

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.