Categories
Nevin Manimala Statistics

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

Arch Osteoporos. 2021 Jun 19;16(1):99. doi: 10.1007/s11657-021-00963-0.

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.

METHODS: Systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, CINAHL, PEDro and OpenGrey for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of community-based rehabilitation interventions incorporating outdoor mobility after hip fracture from database inception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.

PMID:34148132 | DOI:10.1007/s11657-021-00963-0

By Nevin Manimala

Portfolio Website for Nevin Manimala