Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34148132›Full record

SynthesisArchives of osteoporosis2021

Effectiveness of community-based rehabilitation interventions incorporating outdoor mobility on ambulatory ability and falls-related self-efficacy after hip fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Katie J Sheehan, Laura Fitzgerald, Kate Lambe, Finbarr C Martin, Sallie E Lamb, Catherine Sackley

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of osteoporosis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
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

6 authors.

Katie J SheehanDepartment of Population Health Sciences, School of Population and Environmental Sciences, Kings College London, London, UK. katie.sheehan@kcl.ac.uk.
Laura FitzgeraldDepartment of Population Health Sciences, School of Population and Environmental Sciences, Kings College London, London, UK.
Kate LambeDepartment of Population Health Sciences, School of Population and Environmental Sciences, Kings College London, London, UK.
Finbarr C MartinDepartment of Population Health Sciences, School of Population and Environmental Sciences, Kings College London, London, UK.
Sallie E LambInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter, Devon, UK.
Catherine SackleyDepartment of Population Health Sciences, School of Population and Environmental Sciences, Kings College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is limited evidence from 11 randomised controlled trials on the effect of rehabilitation interventions which incorporate outdoor mobility on ambulatory ability and/or self-efficacy after hip fracture. Outdoor mobility should be central (not peripheral) to future intervention studies targeting improvements in ambulatory ability. PURPOSE: Determine the extent to which outdoor mobility is incorporated into rehabilitation interventions after hip fracture. Synthesise the evidence for the effectiveness of these interventions on ambulatory ability and falls-related self-efficacy.

methodsSystematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, CINAHL, PEDro and OpenGrey for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of community-based rehabilitation interventions incorporating outdoor mobility after hip fracture from database inception to January 2021. Exclusion of protocols, pilot/feasibility studies, secondary analyses of RCTs, nonrandomised and non-English language studies. Duplicate screening for eligibility, risk of bias, and data extraction sample. Random effects meta-analysis. Statistical heterogeneity with inconsistency-value (I

resultsRCTs (n = 11) provided limited detail on target or achieved outdoor mobility intervention components. There was conflicting evidence from 2 RCTs for the effect on outdoor walking ability at 1-3 months (risk difference 0.19; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.21, 0.58; I

conclusionIt was not possible to attribute any benefit observed to an outdoor mobility intervention component due to poor reporting of target or achieved outdoor mobility and/or quality of the underlying evidence. Given the low proportion of patients recovering outdoor mobility after hip fracture, future research on interventions with outdoor mobility as a central component is warranted.

trial registrationPROSPERO registration: CRD42021236541.

Indexed as

Accidental FallsHip FracturesHumansSelf EfficacyWalkingFalls efficacyFracture neck of femurHome-basedPhysiotherapyWalking

Identifiers

PMID34148132
PMCPMC8214580

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.