SynthesisBMC geriatrics2026
Comparative effectiveness of community-based rehabilitation programs on functional recovery after hip fracture in older adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommunity-based rehabilitation is critical for functional recovery in older adults after hip fracture, yet the optimal strategy remains uncertain. Previous reviews are limited by the pooling of heterogeneous interventions and an incomplete assessment of evidence quality. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the effectiveness of different community-based rehabilitation programs and, critically, to formally assess the certainty of the evidence.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and NMA of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from four electronic databases up to August 1, 2025. We included RCTs comparing community-based rehabilitation programs (Comprehensive Multidisciplinary Care [MDC], Structured Home Exercise [HomeEx], Attention/Active Control [AC]) against each other or Usual Care (UC) in adults aged 60 + after hip fracture surgery. Primary outcomes were Physical Performance and Activities of Daily Living (ADL/IADL). The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework.
resultsTwelve RCTs involving 1,510 participants were included. The NMA revealed substantial and statistically significant inconsistency across the network for both Physical Performance (Q = 48.69, p < 0.0001) and ADL/IADL (Q = 18.75, p = 0.001). While point estimates suggested trends favoring active interventions over UC, no comparison reached statistical significance. Critically, the GRADE assessment rated the certainty of evidence for all primary outcome comparisons as very low, due to serious concerns regarding risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision.
conclusionThe principal finding of this NMA is the profound heterogeneity and very low certainty of the evidence base for community-based rehabilitation after hip fracture. This finding challenges the practice of treating broad rehabilitation categories as uniform interventions and precludes definitive conclusions about the superiority of any single strategy. While our analysis identifies promising trends that can inform future research, its most significant contribution is the formal quantification of a critical evidence gap, providing an essential roadmap for designing future, high-quality trials capable of delivering robust answers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.