Cited by 15Hip and Femur FracturesBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionBone fractures and treatments

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

Open access
Sheehan, Katie J., Fitzgerald, Laura, Lambe, Kate, Martin, Finbarr C., Lamb, Sallie E., Sackley, Catherine·2021·Archives of Osteoporosis

Abstract

Abstract Summary 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. Methods Systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, CINAHL, PEDro and OpenGrey for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of community-based rehabilitation interventions incorporating outdoor mobility after hip fracture from database inception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 (I2). Results RCTs (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; I2 = 92%), no effect on walking endurance at intervention end (standardised mean difference 0.05; 95% CI: − 0.26, 0.35; I2 = 36%); and suggestive (CI crosses null) of a small effect on self-efficacy at 1–3 months (standardised mean difference 0.25; 95% CI: − 0.29, 0.78; I2 = 87%) compared with routine care/sham intervention. Conclusion It 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 registration PROSPERO registration: CRD42021236541

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11657-021-00963-0

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Several reviews described physiotherapists, occupational therapists, trained non-professionals, exercise scientists, personal trainers, nurses and chiropractors facilitating the interventions.

    “However, several described physiotherapists, occupational therapists, trained non-professionals, exercise scientists, personal trainers, nurses and chiropractors facilitating the interventions.85 86 88”

    From Impact of healthcare interventions on distress following acute musculoskeletal/orthopaedic injury: A scoping review of systematic reviews (2024) · cites this paper as [88]

    In Results, 'Characteristics of included RCTs' (Table 2; page not provided), the review lists physiotherapists, an occupational therapist and trained non-professionals as intervention providers. It also lists a sports therapist, but the available passages do not identify exercise scientists, personal trainers, nurses or chiropractors as intervention facilitators. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sheehan, K. J., Fitzgerald, L., Lambe, K., Martin, F. C., Lamb, S. E., & Sackley, C.
Affiliations
King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Sheehan, Katie J.
Venue
Archives of Osteoporosis
Published
2021-06-19
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
99-99
ISSN
  • 1862-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1862-3522
OpenAlex
W3175946340
Cited by
15
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3
FWCI
0.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of Osteoporosis (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hip and Femur Fractures
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Bone fractures and treatments
Keywords
hip fracture, community-based rehabilitation, outdoor mobility, ambulatory ability, outdoor walking, walking endurance, fracture rehabilitation, intervention effectiveness
MeSH terms
Accidental Falls, Hip Fractures, Humans, Walking, Self Efficacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review