nach oben

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Erschienen in:

Open Access 01.12.2020 | Research article

Exercise for people with a fragility fracture of the pelvis or lower limb: a systematic review of interventions evaluated in clinical trials and reporting quality

verfasst von: David J. Keene, Colin Forde, Thavapriya Sugavanam, Mark A. Williams, Sarah E. Lamb

Erschienen in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Ausgabe 1/2020

Abstract

Background

To aid design of exercise trials for people with pelvic and lower limb fragility fractures a systematic review was conducted to identify what types of exercise interventions and mobility outcomes have been assessed, investigate intervention reporting quality, and evaluate risk of bias in published trials.

Methods

Systematic searches of electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro) 1996–2019 were conducted to identify randomised controlled trials of exercise for pelvic or lower limb fragility fractures. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. One reviewer extracted data, a second verified. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias. Intervention reporting quality was based on TIDieR, assessed by one reviewer and verified by a second. Narrative synthesis was undertaken. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42017060905.

Results

Searches identified 37 trials including 3564 participants, median sample size 81 (IQR 48–124), participants aged 81 years (IQR 79–82) and 76% (2536/3356) female. All trials focussed on people with hip fracture except one on ankle fracture. Exercise types focussed on resistance exercise in 14 trials, weight bearing exercise in 5 trials, 13 varied dose of sessions with health professionals, and 2 trials each focussed on treadmill gait training, timing of weight bearing or aerobic exercise. 30/37 (81%) of trials reported adequate sequence generation, 25/37 (68%) sufficient allocation concealment. 10/37 (27%) trials lacked outcome assessor blinding. Of 65 exercise interventions, reporting was clear for 33 (51%) in terms of when started, 61 (94%) for where delivered, 49 (75%) for who delivered, 47 (72%) for group or individual, 29 (45%) for duration, 46 (71%) for session frequency, 8 (12%) for full prescription details to enable the exercises to be reproduced, 32 (49%) clearly reported tailoring or modification, and 23 (35%) reported exercise adherence. Subjectively assessed mobility was assessed in 22/37 (59%) studies and 29/37 (78%) used an objective measure.

Conclusions

All trials focussed on hip fracture, apart from one ankle fracture trial. Research into pelvic and other lower limb fragility fractures is indicated. A range of exercise types were investigated but to date deficiencies in intervention reporting hamper reproducibility. Adoption of TIDieR and CERT guidelines should improve intervention reporting as use increases. Trials would be improved by consistent blinded outcome assessor use and with consensus on which mobility outcomes should be assessed.

Additional file 1.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03361-8.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

CENTRAL

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials

CERT

Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template

NHS

National Health Service

TIDieR

Template for Intervention Description and Replication

Background

Fragility fractures result from low-energy trauma, usually a fall from standing height or lower. Each year 300,000 people attend UK NHS hospitals with a fragility fracture related to bone insufficiency in older age [1]. This represents a major health, social and economic problem, with an estimated annual cost of £1.8 billion [2]. Lower limb fragility fractures can have a devastating impact, resulting in mobility problems and loss of independence [3].

A core component of rehabilitation after fragility fracture is exercise prescription. A previous systematic scoping review of exercise prescription for people with any type of fragility fracture included studies up to 2009 [4]. While the scale of that review provided a comprehensive overview of exercise interventions at the time, an updated and more focussed systematic review was indicated to inform the development of future interventions for this patient group.

To the best of our knowledge no reviews to date have examined the quality of intervention reporting in trials involving people with lower limb fragility fractures. In other areas of exercise rehabilitation, limitations in reporting that prevent replication in other trials or implementation into clinical practice have been identified [5, 6]. It is therefore important to identify not only what exercise interventions have been assessed but also to establish if reporting of lower limb fragility fracture trials have similar issues in reporting quality, and if so, what areas of reporting are in greatest need of improvement to enable replicability and implementation. Exercise targets improvement in mobility after lower limb fragility fracture and this is a core outcome domain in this patient group, [7] therefore it is also important to identify what outcome measures have been used.

The overall purpose of our review was to provide evidence to guide future exercise intervention development and evaluation for people with pelvic and lower limb fragility fractures and to highlight areas of study design and intervention reporting that could be enhanced to improve the quality, replicability and implementation of future trials. Our aims were to identify the types of exercise interventions that have been tested in randomised clinical trials, investigate the reporting quality of exercise interventions, describe which mobility outcome measures have been used, and evaluate the risk of bias in the trial design and conduct.

Methods

This systematic review was registered on the PROSPERO database (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php? ID = CRD42017060905) and reported according to PRISMA guidance [8].

Eligibility

Types of studies

Randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised controlled trials were considered eligible.

Types of participants

Studies involving adults (50 years or older) within one year of a pelvic or lower limb fracture initially treated surgically or conservatively were included. Studies were excluded if participants were younger (aged under 50 years old), unless separate data for older adults were available, or the proportion of younger adults was small (less than 10%) and, preferably, numbers balanced between the groups.

Types of interventions

Trials comparing different prescribed exercise regimes against each other, or prescribed exercise versus a comparator intervention such as rest, immobilisation in a brace, cast or splint, advice only, or ‘usual care’ were eligible. Exercise prescription encompassed planned physical activity, exercise or active rehabilitation prescribed by a physician, physical therapist or occupational therapist, or other allied health professional [4].

Types of outcomes

We extracted data on which outcome measures of mobility were used in the trials both in terms of subjectively assessed measures of mobility (e.g. Lower Extremity Functional Scale) and objective clinical measures of mobility (e.g. timed walking tests). Duration and timing of follow-up were also extracted.

Search strategy for identification of studies

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). We did not apply language restrictions to the searches. Studies published in 1996 or later were included. Searches were completed April 2019 and updated in MEDLINE and EMBASE in July 2019. Reference lists of included trials were checked for potentially eligible studies. An example search strategy is available in the online supplementary file.

Selection of studies

Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts using Covidence software (Covidence, Australia). We obtained full reports of potentially eligible studies, and both reviewers independently performed study selection. If agreement was not achieved by discussion at any stage, a third review author adjudicated. Articles for inclusion were limited to those written in English and published in academic journals.

Data extraction

One author extracted data using a standard data extraction form and a second author checked the extracted data against the source while tabulating the data. The data extraction form was piloted and then modified. The following information was systematically extracted: sample size, sample demographics (age, sex, injury characteristics, time since injury), detailed descriptions of the interventions (including setting, timing, care personnel involved, training, equipment used, weight-bearing, prescription of walking aids, and the type and prescription of exercises used, and assessment of adherence), and the specified mobility outcome measures.

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane’s Risk of Bias tool [9]. We used the following domains: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting. Disagreements were resolved by discussion.

Intervention reporting

Reporting quality for the interventions was based on the TIDieR [10] guidance for reporting complex interventions. The quality of intervention reporting was assessed by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. The criteria for the assessments are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Intervention reporting assessment criteria based on TIDieR [10] recommendations

Quality assessment criteria
Clear	Necessary details reported
Unclear	Some detail reported but did not satisfy the criteria fully
Not reported	No reference to the reporting domain in study report(s)
Not applicable	Reporting domain not applicable to the exercise intervention described
Domain of intervention reporting
When after injury	Intended or actual timing for the start of the intervention after fracture or surgery explicitly stated.
Where done	Location/s of where the intervention took place. Reporting home, hospital, rehabilitation centre was sufficient.
Who delivered	Who administered the intervention (where applicable). Which recognised health professionals (e.g. physiotherapist/ physical therapist, occupational therapist) or for non-health professionals (e.g. administrative staff, trainer) additional information about training or expertise required.
Group/individual	Intervention conducted in a group, individually, or both.
Duration of intervention	Session duration (e.g. minutes) for supervised sessions and period of time over which intervention took place (e.g. weeks). Session duration of home programmes, and supervised sessions where only one exercise was performed and the specifics of the exercise are outlined, did not need to be reported.
Frequency of intervention	How often the intervention was to be completed over a specific period of time i.e. the intended schedule.
Specifics of exercise prescription so would be reproducible	The exercises, sets and repetitions for resistance exercises, duration for aerobic exercises, and exercise loading or intensity needed to be described in sufficient detail, or a reference provided that describes these in sufficient detail, that would allow the intervention to be reproduced.
Tailoring/modifications	Any component of the intervention was explicitly stated to be adapted to the individual and how this was achieved was explained.
Adherence	Completed intervention sessions expressed relative to the prescribed number of sessions for either the supervised or home component of the intervention where applicable e.g. 70% or 20/30, except pragmatic studies where the number of sessions was not prescribed but the number of sessions received by participants was reported.

Data synthesis

A narrative synthesis was undertaken and interventions were grouped by exercise and fracture type. Characteristics of studies were summarised as counts and percentages for categorical data and medians with interquartile ranges for continuous data.

Changes to protocol

The review focussed on intervention content and reporting quality as these have not been previously assessed in sufficient detail to inform the design and conduct of future trials. The originally planned focus on effectiveness and quantitative meta-analysis was not conducted as this became beyond the scope of resources for the study, and effectiveness meta-analyses are available [11].

Results

Study selection and characteristics

Figure 1 outlines the identification, screening, and inclusion of studies. Searches identified 6308 records. After removal of duplicates, the titles and abstracts of 6016 records were screened. Of these, 184 full-text articles were assessed, and 66 articles reporting 37 trials were eligible.

Characteristics of included studies

Of the 37 included trials, most were conducted in Australia or the USA (18/37, 49%). Trial designs were mostly parallel group (35/37, 95%) with two intervention groups (31/37, 84%), see Table 2 for detailed study characteristics. In total, 3565 participants were randomised across the 37 trials, with a median sample size of 81 (IQR 48 to 124). In 32 trials that provided adequate baseline characteristic data, participants were aged a median of 81 years (IQR 79 to 82) and 76% (2536/3356) were female. All trials focussed on people with a hip fracture except one ankle fracture trial [12] that reported results for a subgroup of participants aged more than 50 years.

Table 2

Study characteristics

Characteristic
Year published (N = 37)
1997–2001	3
2002–2006	12
2007–2011	9
2012–2016	11
2017–2019	2
Country (N = 37)
Australia	10
USA	8
Sweden, UK	3
Norway	2
Canada, Egypt, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand	1
RCT design (N = 37)
Parallel	35
Factorial	2
Cluster	0
Other	0
Number of intervention groups (N = 37)
2	31
3	3
4	3
Participants
Total all studies (median; IQR) (N = 36)	3565 (80.5; 47.5 to 123.5)
Age median (IQR) (N = 32)	80.75 (79.29 to 82.24)
Gender (male: female) (N = 32)	820: 2536
Fracture types (N = 37)
Pelvic	0
Hip^a	36
Tibia (diaphysis/metaphyseal)	0
Femur (diaphysis/distal metaphyseal)	0
Knee	0
Ankle	1
Foot	0
Mixture of lower limb fractures	0
Orthopaedic management (N = 37)
Surgical	30
Conservative	0
Both	2
Unclear	5
Exercise intervention type^b(N = 37)
Resistance exercise	14
Dose of sessions with health professional	13
Weight bearing exercise	5
Treadmill training, timing of weight bearing, aerobic exercise	2
Setting of intervention (N = 36)
Inpatient	11
Outpatient	6
Community	13
Combination	6
Subjective mobility outcomes (N = 22)
Hip fracture studies (N = 21):
Harris Hip Score^c, Physical Performance and Mobility Examination, participant self-reported/rated mobility (not a mobility outcome questionnaire/scale)	3
Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment, Yale Physical Activity Scale, Clinician assessment of gait, Functional Ambulatory Categories	2
Functional Status Questionnaire, Hip Rating Questionnaire, Nursing Home Life-Space Diameter, Disability Rating Index, Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care, WOMAC, Assistance required for bed transfers, Modified Functional Status Index, Modified Grimby Scale, Harvard Alumni Physical Activity Index, Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly, Part C of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, International Physical Activity Questionnaire long-from, Assessment of gait using 5 items from the gait component of the Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment	1
Ankle fracture studies (N = 1):
Lower Extremity Functional scale, International Physical Activity Questionnaire short-form	1
Objective mobility outcomes (N = 29)
Hip fracture studies (N = 28):
Timed Up and Go Test	11
Gait speed	10
6 min walk test	7
Timed 6 m walk test	3
Modified Physical Performance Test, Short Physical Performance Battery, 10 m walk test, cadence during timed 6 m walk test, number of steps during timed 6 m walk test, step length during timed 6 m walk test, timed stair climbing	2
2 min walk test, 10 min walk test, 10 min walk test with obstacles, 10 min walk test with cognitive task, daily walking distance, distance walked during treatment, Lower Extremity Gain Scale, 48 h step count, timed transfer lying to sitting, 50 ft walk test, time to walk 10 ft and turn back	1
Ankle Fracture studies (N = 1):
Gait speed	1
Mixed subjective and objective mobility outcomes (N = 4)
Hip fracture studies (N = 4):
Modified Iowa Level of Assistance Scale, Elderly Mobility Scale	2
Ankle Fracture studies (N = 0)
Duration of follow-up (longest time frame in each study) (N = 34)
0–6 weeks	7
> 6–16 weeks	9
> 16 weeks	18
Total median (IQR) (N = 33)	6 (2.5 to 12) months

^aThree participants (1 in the control group, 2 in the intervention group) did not have a hip fracture but had elective hip surgery. These participants had a recent injurious fall

^b Mangione et al. 2005 is in 2 categories: ‘Resistance exercise’ and ‘Aerobic exercise’

^cThe Harris Hip score is not categorised as a Mixed mobility outcome as the objective component of this outcome does not assess mobility

Interventions

A range of exercise types were assessed (see Tables 2 and 3), including 14 focussing on resistance exercise, five on weight bearing exercise, 13 varied the dose of sessions with health professions, and two each focussed on treadmill training, timing of weight bearing, or aerobic exercise. These main types of intervention were often combined with other types of exercise, and compared to diverse control interventions (see Table 3).

Table 3

Exercise interventions and comparators across included studies

Intervention			Control		Study
Resistance exercise	Resistance exercise only
	Resistance exercise		Aerobic exercise	Inactive control	Mangione et al. 2005 [13] ^a
	Resistance exercise		TENS		Mangione et al. 2010 [14]
	Resistance exercise	Resistance exercise and supplementary nutrition	Supplementary nutrition	Advice	Miller et al. 2006 [15]
	Resistance exercise		Inactive control		Sherrington et al. 1997 [16]
	Resistance and functional movement exercises
	Resistance and functional movement exercises		Inactive control		Sylliaas et al. 2012 [17]
	Resistance and functional movement exercises		Inactive control		Sylliaas et al. 2011 [18]
	Resistance, balance, and flexibility exercise, and advice
	Resistance, balance, and flexibility exercise, and advice		Non-weight bearing flexibility exercise and advice		Moseley et al. 2015 [12]
	Resistance, functional movement, and balance exercise
	Resistance, functional movement, and balance exercise		Functional movement and balance exercise		Mitchell et al. 2001 [19]
	Resistance, functional movement, and balance exercise		Physical activity and cognitive task practice		Hauer 2002 [20]
	Resistance and aerobic exercise
	Resistance and aerobic exercise	Resistance and aerobic exercise, \and behaviour change strategies	Behaviour change strategies	Inactive control	Resnick et al 2007 [21]
	Resistance, flexibility, balance, and aerobic exercise
	Resistance, flexibility, balance, and aerobic exercise		Flexibility exercise		Binder et al. 2004 [22]
	Resistance, aerobic, and balance exercise
	Resistance, aerobic, and balance exercise		Inactive control		Peterson et al. 2004 [23]
	Resistance and functional movement exercise, and behaviour change strategies
	Resistance and functional movement exercise, and behaviour change strategies		Dietary advice		Latham et al. 2016 [24]
	Resistance and balance exercise, and complex optional intervention components
	Resistance and balance exercise, and complex optional intervention components		Usual care including physiotherapy		Singh et al. 2012 [25]
Weight bearing exercise	Weight bearing resistance and functional movement exercise
	Weight bearing resistance and functional movement exercise		Non-weight bearing flexibility and functional movement exercise		Sherrington et al. 2003 [26]
	Higher dose weight bearing resistance and functional movement exercise		Lower dose limited weight bearing resistance and functional movement exercise		Moseley et al. 2009 [27]
	Weight bearing resistance exercise only
	Weight bearing resistance exercise		Non-weight bearing flexibility exercise	Inactive control	Sherrington et al. 2004 [28]
	Weight bearing resistance and balance exercise, and advice
	Weight bearing resistance and balance exercise, and advice		Inactive control		Elinge et al. 2003 [29]
	Weight bearing balance and functional movement exercise
	Weight bearing balance and functional movement exercise		Limited weight bearing resistance, flexibility, and functional movement exercise		Monticone et al. 2018 [30]
Treadmill training	Body Weight-Supported Treadmill Training and usual physical therapy		Usual physical therapy		Ohoka et al. 2015 [31]
Treadmill training	Adaptability treadmill training and multimodal exercise^b		Conventional treadmill training and multimodal exercise	Multimodal exercise	van Ooijen et al. 2016 [32]
Dose of sessions with health professional	Multi-disciplinary care:
	Higher dose multi-disciplinary care		Lower dose multi-disciplinary care		Ryan et al. 2006 [33]
	Higher dose multi-disciplinary care		Lower dose multi-disciplinary care		Crotty et al. 2019 [34]
	Physiotherapy:
	Higher dose physiotherapy		Lower dose physiotherapy		Kimmel et al. 2016 [35]
	Higher dose physiotherapy and high dose cholecalciferol	Higher dose physiotherapy and low dose cholecalciferol	Lower dose physiotherapy and high dose cholecalciferol	Lower dose physiotherapy and low dose cholecalciferol	Bischoff-Ferrari et al. 2010 [36]
	Higher dose physiotherapy		Lower dose physiotherapy		Tsauo et al. 2005 [37]
	Occupational therapy/functional training
	Occupational therapy/functional training and usual care including physiotherapy		Usual care including physiotherapy		Hagsten et al. 2004 [38]
	Occupational therapy/functional training and multimodal exercise		Multimodal exercise		Martín-Martín et al. 2014 [39]
	Occupational therapy/functional training and higher dose multimodal exercise		Lower dose multimodal exercise		Tinetti et al. 1999 [40]
	Behaviour change strategies and exercise:
	Behaviour change strategies, unspecified exercise, and usual care		Usual care		Suwanpasu et al. 2014 [41]
	Behaviour change strategies, higher dose functional movement exercise, and functional training		Lower dose functional movement exercise and functional training		Zidén et al. 2008 [42]
	Behaviour change strategies, resistance, and aerobic exercise		Inactive control		Orwig et al. 2011 [43]
	Behaviour change strategies, multimodal exercise, and flexibility exercise		Flexibility exercise		Salpakoski et al. 2014 [44]
	Behaviour change strategies, functional movement exercise, and usual care		Usual care		Williams et al. 2017 [45]
Timing of weight bearing	Early weight bearing and flexibility exercise		Delayed weight bearing and flexibility exercise		Ali 2010 [46]
Timing of weight bearing	Early weight bearing and usual physiotherapy		Delayed weight bearing and usual physiotherapy		Oldmeadow et al. 2006 [47]
Aerobic exercise	Aerobic exercise only
	Aerobic exercise		Resistance exercise	Inactive control	Mangione et al. 2005 [13] ^a
	Aerobic and multimodal exercise
	Aerobic and multimodal exercise		Multimodal exercise		Mendelsohn et al. 2008 [48]

Definitions: Inactive control: if the control group were not receiving any input from a healthcare clinician, or the experimental intervention commences after input from a healthcare clinician has finished for both the experimental intervention group and control group; Physiotherapy in title of control groups: if what exercise was completed as part of physiotherapy is not described; Usual care: if receiving input from healthcare clinicians but physiotherapy is not explicitly mentioned; Functional training: umbrella term to include activities of daily living practice

^aStudy appears in 2 categories: ‘Resistance exercise’ and ‘Aerobic exercise’

^bMultimodal exercise is > 3 different types of exercise e.g. flexibility, resistance, balance, and mobility exercise

Exercises only completed in the warm-up and warm-down of exercise interventions were not included in the intervention description e.g. if flexibility exercises were only completed in the warm-up, flexibility exercise is not included in the intervention title

The setting of exercise intervention delivery was 11 for inpatients, six for outpatients, 13 for community, six were a combination, and for one trial it was unclear what the setting was.

Outcomes

Subjectively assessed mobility outcome measures were used in 22/37 (59%) studies and 29/37 (78%) used an objective mobility measure. There were no common outcome instruments used across the trials. The most frequently used instruments were the Timed Up and Go test (11 trials) and gait speed (11 trials). The length of follow-up was a median of 6 (IQR 2.5 to 12) months.

Risk of bias within included studies

Risk of bias assessments are shown in Table 4. Within the limitations of reporting, it was judged that 30/37 (81%) trials had adequate sequence generation and 25/37 (68%) had sufficient allocation concealment. 10/37 (27%) of trials were at high risk of bias due to a lack of outcome assessor blinding.

Table 4

Risk of bias assessments

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fs12891-020-03361-8/MediaObjects/12891_2020_3361_Tab4_HTML.png

*(judged unclear if changes from protocol to reporting not explicitly stated or if no protocol available)

Green = low; Amber = unclear; Red = high

Reporting quality of interventions

Of the 37 included trials there were 65 different exercise intervention groups and 16 non-exercise or inactive control comparator groups (see Table 5 for reporting quality assessments). Of the 65 exercise interventions, reporting was judged as being clearly described for 33 (51%) when treatment started after injury, 61 (94%) for where it was delivered, 49 (75%) for who delivered it, 47 (72%) on whether delivered as group or individual, 29 (45%) for the duration of the intervention, 46 (71%) for session frequency, 8 (12%) for the full prescription details to enable the intervention to be reproduced, 32 (49%) clearly reported tailoring or modification, and 23 (35%) reported exercise adherence in the trial. Of the six comparator usual care exercise interventions, only one had more than half of the intervention reporting criteria assessed as being clear.

Table 5

Intervention reporting assessment for each included study*

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fs12891-020-03361-8/MediaObjects/12891_2020_3361_Tab5_HTML.png

*C Clearly reported, UC Unclear/uncertain, NR Not reported, N/A Not applicable

^a Duration of phase one sessions was C, duration of phase two sessions was NR

^b Time from fracture/surgery to enrolment/baseline assessment/beginning of study/admission to rehab centre was C. When the intervention commenced after fracture/surgery was NR or UC

^c Duration of the usual component of the experimental intervention was C. Duration of the additional components of the experimental intervention was NR or UC

^d4 Authors reported some/all of the exercise intervention was individualised but how this was achieved was NR or UC

^e Treatment group received no intervention

^f Whether the usual care component of the experimental intervention was group-based/individually completed was NR or UC. Whether the additional components of the experimental intervention were group-based/individually completed was C

^g Duration of usual care component of the experimental intervention was NR or UC. Duration of the additional components of the experimental intervention was C

^h Frequency of usual care component of the experimental intervention was NR or UC. Frequency of the additional components of the experimental intervention was C

ⁱ Tailoring/modification of the usual care component of the experimental intervention was NR or UC. Tailoring/modification of the additional components of the experimental intervention was C

^j Adherence to usual care component of the experimental arm was NR or UC. Adherence to the additional components of the experimental intervention was C

^k Treatment group received an intervention that did not contain an exercise/physical activity component

^l Who provided usual care component of the experimental intervention was C. Who provided the additional components of the experimental intervention was NR or UC

^m Specifics of the usual care component of the experimental arm were NR or UC. Specifics of the additional components of the experimental intervention were C

ⁿ Exercise component of this treatment group was the same as the ‘Resistance exercise’ treatment group

^o Contradictory information for this domain is presented in the article and the article appendix

^p Exercise component of this treatment group was the same as the ‘Resistance and aerobic exercise’ treatment group

^q Adherence to treatment was NR separately for stroke and hip fracture participants

^r Who provided usual care component of the experimental intervention was NR or UC. Who provided the additional components of the experimental intervention was C

^s Time from fracture/surgery to commencing usual care component of the experimental intervention was NR or UC. Time from fracture/surgery to commencing the additional components of the experimental intervention was C

^t Time from fracture/surgery to commencing the usual care component of the experimental intervention was C. Time from fracture/surgery to commencing the additional components of the experimental intervention was NR or UC

^u Frequency of the usual care component of the experimental intervention was C. Frequency of the additional components of the experimental intervention was NR

Discussion

A range of exercise types have been investigated for pelvic and lower limb fragility fractures, with most trials investigating resistance exercise or higher doses of sessions with a health professional. To date deficiencies in reporting of the exercise interventions hamper reproducibility of the interventions, especially in terms of the specific details on how exercises were prescribed. Reporting of usual care exercise comparator interventions was poor. Details on exercise prescription that were most often missed related to the movements performed in the exercises, sets and repetitions for resistance exercises, duration for aerobic exercises, and exercise loading or intensity. Adoption of the TIDieR [10] checklist for reporting complex interventions should improve reporting of future trials. TIDieR was published in 2014, prior to all but five of the 37 trials included in this review. Supplementary use of the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) [49] is also indicated as these guidelines additionally target the main deficiencies in reporting identified in our review. It is important to recognise that the problems with exercise intervention reporting in pelvic and lower limb fragility fracture trials are consistent with other fields of rehabilitation so these issues are not isolated [5, 6].

One key area of trial design and conduct that could be improved upon in future trials is the blinding of outcome assessors as this was inadequate in 27% of trials and this could be rectified without significant additional resource burden. Blinded outcome assessors are arguably crucial given that the nature of exercise makes it self-evident what intervention is being received, as reflected in our finding that no trial had a low risk of bias assessment for blinding of participants and personnel.

With one exception, all exercise trials for adults with a pelvic or lower limb fragility fractures have been focussed on hip fracture. There is a significant burden from other non-hip fragility fractures as they often require hospitalisation and result in long-term disability, [50] therefore further research for people with pelvic and other lower limb fragility fractures is also needed. Even though most trials have focussed on hip fracture, reflecting their proportionately greater health and socio-economic impact, Sheehan and colleagues [51] have highlighted that rehabilitation trials in this patient group have underrepresented participants with cognitive impairment and nursing home residents, therefore trials focussing on other populations are also indicated.

Previous reviews have included meta-analyses to assess the effectiveness of different exercise interventions [11]. The pooling of outcomes from these trials could be problematic in the context of the intervention heterogeneity and reporting quality limitations outlined in this review. Dealing with heterogeneity in intervention components is a common challenge in quantitative synthesis of complex interventions. One approach that enables an assessment of intervention components is meta-regression, as employed by Diong and colleagues in a review of hip fracture exercise trials, [52] however, there was heterogeneity in the comparator interventions in some of the pooled studies, and there is ongoing debate as to what extent these analytical approaches manage evident clinical variations in intervention components that can interact [53].

Mobility-specific subjective and objective outcome measures were included in 59 and 78% of trials respectively but it is evident within our review that there is inconsistency in the outcome instruments used. The degree of heterogeneity in outcome measure instruments would make quantitative synthesis problematic. Further consensus work towards a core outcome set for rehabilitation trials for people with pelvic and lower limb fragility fractures would therefore be valuable.

This review has some limitations. We included English language and published literature only, meaning that some relevant studies may have been missed. Data extraction and reporting quality was not completely repeated independently by a second reviewer due to the resource limitations of the study. However, a second reviewer did verify these data against the source and any discrepancies corrected in discussion. Finally, as there was no specific intervention reporting quality assessment tool, a review specific assessment was developed drawing on the TIDieR reporting guidelines. A tool for these purposes would be valuable for future research but findings from our assessments provided some clear areas of focus for improving reporting in future exercise trials.

Conclusion

All exercise trials for adults with a pelvic or lower limb fragility fractures have been focussed on hip fracture, apart from one ankle fracture trial. Research for people with pelvic and other lower limb fragility fractures is indicated. A wide range of exercise types have been investigated but to date deficiencies in reporting of the interventions hamper the reproducibility of the interventions, especially in terms of the specific details on how exercises were prescribed. Use of TIDieR and CERT reporting guidelines for future trials will likely improve intervention reporting. Trials of exercise interventions would also be improved by consistent use of blinded outcome assessors and with further consensus on which mobility outcomes should be assessed.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03361-8.

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Hessam Soutakbar, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Oxford, for contributing to the data extraction stage of the study; Liz Callow, Outreach Librarian, Bodleian Health Care Libraries, University of Oxford, for supporting development and execution of the search strategy; and Sally Hopewell, Associate Professor, University of Oxford, for critical review of the review protocol .

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research, or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Not applicable, systematic review.

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1.

British Orthopaedic Association. The care of patients with fragility fracture. London: British Orthopaedic Association; 2007.

Burge RT, Worley D, Johansen A, Bhattacharyya S, Bose U. The cost of osteoporotic fractures in the UK: projections for 2000–2020. J Med Econ. 2001;4(1–4):51–62.CrossRef

Pasco JA, Sanders KM, Hoekstra FM, Henry MJ, Nicholson GC, Kotowicz MA. The human cost of fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16(12):2046–52.PubMedCrossRef

Feehan LM, Beck CA, Harris SR, MacIntyre DL, Li LC. Exercise prescription after fragility fracture in older adults: a scoping review. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22(5):1289–322.PubMedCrossRef

Yamato TP, Maher CG, Saragiotto BT, Hoffmann TC, Moseley AM. How completely are physiotherapy interventions described in reports of randomised trials? Physiotherapy. 2016;102(2):121–6.PubMedCrossRef

Negrini S, Arienti C, Pollet J, Engkasan JP, Francisco GE, Frontera WR, Galeri S, Gworys K, Kujawa J, Mazlan M, et al. Clinical replicability of rehabilitation interventions in randomized controlled trials reported in main journals is inadequate. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;114:108–17.PubMedCrossRef

Haywood KL, Griffin XL, Achten J, Costa ML. Developing a core outcome set for hip fracture trials. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-b(8):1016–23.PubMedCrossRef

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Bmj. 2009;339:b2535.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Higgins JPT, Green S, Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008. 1 online resource.CrossRef

10.

Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, Altman DG, Barbour V, Macdonald H, Johnston M, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687.

11.

Handoll HH, Sherrington C, Mak JC. Interventions for improving mobility after hip fracture surgery in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(3):CD001704. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001704.pub4.

12.

Moseley AM, Beckenkamp PB, Haas M, Herbert RD, Lin CW, for the EXACT Team. Rehabilitation after immobilization for ankle fracture: the EXACT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(13):1376–85.

13.

Mangione KK, Craik RL, Tomlinson SS, Palombaro KM. Can elderly patients who have had a hip fracture perform moderate- to high-intensity exercise at home? Phys Ther. 2005;85(8):727–39.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Mangione KK, Craik RL, Palombaro KM, Tomlinson SS, Hofmann MT. Home-based leg-strengthening exercise improves function 1 year after hip fracture: a randomized controlled study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(10):1911–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

15.

Miller MD, Crotty M, Whitehead C, Bannerman E, Daniels LA. Nutritional supplementation and resistance training in nutritionally at risk older adults following lower limb fracture: a randomized controlled trial [with consumer summary]. Clin Rehab. 2006;20(4):311–23 2006.CrossRef

16.

Sherrington C, Lord SR. Home exercise to improve strength and walking velocity after hip fracture: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78(2):208–12.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Sylliaas H, Brovold T, Wyller TB, Bergland A. Prolonged strength training in older patients after hip fracture: a randomised controlled trial [with consumer summary]. Age Ageing. 2012;41(2):206–12 2012.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Sylliaas H, Brovold T, Wyller TB, Bergland A. Progressive strength training in older patients after hip fracture: a randomised controlled trial [with consumer summary]. Age Ageing. 2011;40(2):221–7 2011.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Mitchell SL, Stott DJ, Martin BJ, Grant SJ. Randomized controlled trial of quadriceps training after proximal femoral fracture [with consumer summary]. Clin Rehab. 2001;15(3):282–90 2001.CrossRef

20.

Hauer K, Specht N, Schuler M, Rtsch P, Oster P. Intensive physical training in geriatric patients after severe falls and hip surgery [with consumer summary]. Age Ageing. 2002;31(1):49–57 2002.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Resnick B, Orwig D, Yu-Yahiro J, Hawkes W, Shardell M, Hebel JR, Zimmerman S, Golden J, Werner M, Magaziner J. Testing the effectiveness of the exercise plus program in older women post-hip fracture. Ann Behav Med. 2007;34(1):67–76.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Binder EF, Brown M, Sinacore DR, Steger-May K, Yarasheski KE, Schechtman KB. Effects of extended outpatient rehabilitation after hip fracture: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Assoc. 2004;292(7):837–46.CrossRef

23.

Peterson MGE, Ganz SB, Allegrante JP, Cornell CN. High-intensity exercise training following hip fracture. Topics Geriatr Rehab. 2004;20(4):273–84.CrossRef

24.

Latham NK, Harris BA, Bean JF, Heeren T, Goodyear C, Zawacki S, Heislein DM, Mustafa J, Pardasaney P, Giorgetti M, et al. Effect of a home-based exercise program on functional recovery following rehabilitation after hip fracture: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;311(7):700–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

25.

Singh NA, Quine S, Clemson LM, Williams EJ, Williamson DA, Stavrinos TM, Grady JN, Perry TJ, Lloyd BD, Smith EU, et al. Effects of high-intensity progressive resistance training and targeted multidisciplinary treatment of frailty on mortality and nursing home admissions after hip fracture: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012;13:24–30.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Sherrington C, Lord SR, Herbert RD. A randomised trial of weight-bearing versus non-weight-bearing exercise for improving physical ability in inpatients after hip fracture. Aust J Physiother. 2003;49(1):15–22.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Moseley AM, Sherrington C, Lord SR, Barraclough E, St George RJ, Cameron ID. Mobility training after hip fracture: a randomised controlled trial [with consumer summary]. Age Ageing. 2009;38(1):74–80 2009.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Sherrington C, Lord SR, Herbert RD. A randomized controlled trial of weight-bearing versus non-weight-bearing exercise for improving physical ability after usual care for hip fracture. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(5):710–6.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Elinge E, Lofgren B, Gagerman E, Nyberg L. A group learning programme for old people with hip fracture: a randomized study. Scand J Occup Ther. 2003;10:27–33.CrossRef

30.

Monticone M, Ambrosini E, Brunati R, Capone A, Pagliari G, Secci C, Zatti G, Ferrante S. How balance task-specific training contributes to improving physical function in older subjects undergoing rehabilitation following hip fracture: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2018;32(3):340–51.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Ohoka T, Urabe Y, Shirakawa T. Therapeutic exercises for proximal femoral fracture of super-aged patients: Effect of walking assistance using body weight-supported treadmill training (BWSTT). Physiotherapy (United Kingdom). 2015;101:eS1124–5.

32.

van Ooijen MW, Roerdink M, Trekop M, Janssen TWJ, Beek PJ. The efficacy of treadmill training with and without projected visual context for improving walking ability and reducing fall incidence and fear of falling in older adults with fall-related hip fracture: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16(1):215.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

33.

Ryan T, Enderby P, Rigby AS. A randomized controlled trial to evaluate intensity of community-based rehabilitation provision following stroke or hip fracture in old age. Clin Rehab. 2012;20:123–31.CrossRef

34.

Crotty M, Killington M, Liu E, Cameron ID, Kurrle S, Kaambwa B, Davies O, Miller M, Chehade M, Ratcliffe J. Should we provide outreach rehabilitation to very old people living in nursing care facilities after a hip fracture? A randomised controlled trial. Age Ageing. 2019;48(3):373–80.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

35.

Kimmel LA, Liew SM, Sayer JM, Holland AE. HIP4Hips (high intensity physiotherapy for hip fractures in the acute hospital setting): a randomised controlled trial [with consumer summary]. Med J Aust. 2016;205(2):73–8 2016.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Dawson-Hughes B, Platz A, Orav EJ, Stahelin HB, Willett WC, Can U, Egli A, Mueller NJ, Looser S, et al. Effect of high-dosage cholecalciferol and extended physiotherapy on complications after hip fracture: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(9):813–20.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Tsauo J, Leu W, Chen Y, Yang R. Effects on function and quality of life of postoperative home-based physical therapy for patients with hip fracture. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 2005;86(10):1953–7.CrossRef

38.

Hagsten B, Svensson O, Gardulf A. Early individualized postoperative occupational therapy training in 100 patients improves ADL after hip fracture: a randomized trial. Acta Orthop Scand. 2004;75(2):177–83.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Martín-Martín LM, Valenza-Demet G, Jimenez-Moleon JJ, Cabrera-Martos I, Revelles-Moyano FJ, Valenza MC. Effect of occupational therapy on functional and emotional outcomes after hip fracture treatment: a randomized controlled trial [with consumer summary]. Clin Rehab. 2013;28(6):541–51 2013.CrossRef

40.

Tinetti ME, Baker DI, Gottschalk M, Williams CS, Pollack D, Garrett P, Gill TM, Marottoli RA, Acampora D. Home-based multicomponent rehabilitation program for older persons after hip fracture: a randomized trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80(8):916–22.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Suwanpasu S, Aungsuroch Y, Jitapanya C. Post-surgical physical activity enhancing program for elderly patients after hip fracture: a randomized controlled trial. Asian Biomedicine. 2014;8(4):525–32.CrossRef

42.

Zidén L, Frandin K, Kreuter M. Home rehabilitation after hip fracture a randomized controlled study on balance confidence, physical function and everyday activities [with consumer summary]. Clin Rehab. 2008;22(12):1019–33 2008.CrossRef

43.

Orwig DL, Hochberg M, Yu-Yahiro J, Resnick B, Hawkes WG, Shardell M, Hebel JR, Colvin P, Miller RR, Golden J, et al. Delivery and outcomes of a yearlong home exercise program after hip fracture: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(4):323–31.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

44.

Salpakoski A, Törmäkangas T, Edgren J, Kallinen M, Sihvonen SE, Pesola M, Vanhatalo J, Arkela M, Rantanen T, Sipilä S. Effects of a multicomponent home-based physical rehabilitation program on mobility recovery after hip fracture: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2014;15(5):361–8.PubMedCrossRef

45.

Williams NH, Roberts JL, Din NU, Charles JM, Totton N, Williams M, Mawdesley K, Hawkes CA, Morrison V, Lemmey A, et al. Developing a multidisciplinary rehabilitation package following hip fracture and testing in a randomised feasibility study: fracture in the elderly multidisciplinary rehabilitation (FEMuR). Health Technol Assess. 2017;21(44):1–528.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

46.

Ali MMI. Influence of early post operative weight bearing on hip function after femoral trochanteric fractures. Bull Faculty Physiother Cairo University. 2010;15(2):69–75.

47.

Oldmeadow LB, Edwards ER, Kimmel LA, Kipen E, Robertson VJ, Bailey MJ. No rest for the wounded: early ambulation after hip surgery accelerates recovery. ANZ J Surg. 2006;76(7):607–11.PubMedCrossRef

48.

Mendelsohn ME, Overend TJ, Connelly DM, Petrella RJ. Improvement in aerobic fitness during rehabilitation after hip fracture. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(4):609–17.PubMedCrossRef

49.

Slade SC, Dionne CE, Underwood M, Buchbinder R, Beck B, Bennell K, Brosseau L, Costa L, Cramp F, Cup E, et al. Consensus on exercise reporting template (CERT): modified Delphi study. Phys Ther. 2016;96(10):1514–24.PubMedCrossRef

50.

Keene DJ, Lamb SE, Mistry D, Tutton E, Lall R, Handley R, Willett K. Ankle injury management trial C: three-year follow-up of a trial of close contact casting vs surgery for initial treatment of unstable ankle fractures in older adults. JAMA. 2018;319(12):1274–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

51.

Sheehan KJ, Fitzgerald L, Hatherley S, Potter C, Ayis S, Martin FC, Gregson CL, Cameron ID, Beaupre LA, Wyatt D, et al. Inequity in rehabilitation interventions after hip fracture: a systematic review. Age Ageing. 2019;48(4):489–97.PubMedCrossRef

52.

Diong J, Allen N, Sherrington C. Structured exercise improves mobility after hip fracture: a meta-analysis with meta-regression. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(6):346–55.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Dias S, Sutton AJ, Welton NJ, Ades AE, NICE Decision Support Unit Technical Support Documents. Heterogeneity: Subgroups, Meta-Regression, Bias And Bias-Adjustment. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2012.

Titel: Exercise for people with a fragility fracture of the pelvis or lower limb: a systematic review of interventions evaluated in clinical trials and reporting quality
verfasst von: David J. Keene
Colin Forde
Thavapriya Sugavanam
Mark A. Williams
Sarah E. Lamb
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2020
Verlag: BioMed Central
Erschienen in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Ausgabe 1/2020
Elektronische ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03361-8

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen.
» Jetzt entdecken

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

25.04.2024 | Hypertonie | Nachrichten

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Supplementary information

Publisher’s Note

Background

Methods

Eligibility

Types of studies

Types of participants

Types of interventions

Types of outcomes

Search strategy for identification of studies

Selection of studies

Data extraction

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

Intervention reporting

Data synthesis

Changes to protocol

Results

Study selection and characteristics

Characteristics of included studies

Interventions

Outcomes

Risk of bias within included studies

Reporting quality of interventions

Discussion

Conclusion

Supplementary information

Acknowledgements

Disclaimer

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication

Competing interests

Publisher’s Note

Supplementary information

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2020

Factors associated with screening positive for high falls risk in fragility fracture patients: a cross-sectional study

Validation of the 7-item knee replacement patient education questionnaire (KR-PEQ-7), based on the 16-item knee osteoarthritis patient education questionnaire (KOPEQ)

Risk of pedicle and spinous process violation during cortical bone trajectory screw placement in the lumbar spine

Prognostic factors for overall survival in patients with spinal metastasis secondary to prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Revision surgery for instrumentation failure after total en bloc spondylectomy: a retrospective case series

Joint motion of bipolar hemiarthroplasty in routine hip functional movements: a dynamic motion study

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Therapiestart mit Blutdrucksenkern erhöht Frakturrisiko

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Vorsicht mit hohen NSAR-Dosen bei ankylosierender Spondylitis!

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie