Hussain 2022.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT, parallel design, 2‐armed trial
Participants	Total number of randomised participants: 32 Source population: single centre, Pakistan Inclusion criteria: 19 to 67 years of age, Sanders Type II and III closed fractures < 3 weeks old, had normal bipedal gait before injury Exclusion criteria: calcaneal injuries connected with spinal injuries, pathological fractures, peripheral vasculopathy, or any medical contraindication to surgery, no informed consent Overall baseline characteristics Sex (M/F): 21/11 Type of fracture (Sanders II/III): 52%/48% Baseline characteristics for surgical group Age, mean: average age 40 years Baseline characteristics for non‐surgical group Age, mean: average age 42 years
Interventions	Surgical group Number randomised: 16 Losses (with reasons): 0 Number analysed: 16 Treatment description: surgery within 2 weeks of injury. Spinal, general, or epidural anaesthetic. Extensile lateral approach used. Use of a single lateral plate. Stayed in hospital with limb in short leg non‐weight‐bearing splint. Weight‐bearing not authorised until 10 weeks postoperatively. Early subtalar RoM activities out of splint Non‐surgical group Number randomised: 16 Losses (with reasons): 0 Number analysed: 16 Treatment description: closed reduction was tried; short leg casts applied for 6 weeks and RoM exercises performed. In the case of swelling, temporary splint applied with a short leg POP back slab, suggested elevation and anti‐inflammatory and analgesic medications
Outcomes	Timing of assessments: 1 year Outcomes reported in review: pain from exercise (n,%), pain from daily activities (n,%), pain from weight‐bearing (n,%); RoM; restriction from work; Böhler's angle, Gissane angle; function (using MRS: excellent/good/satisfactory/poor); adverse events (delayed wound healing, subtalar arthritis, calcaneal malunion, peroneal tendonitis, heel exostosis) Other outcomes: gait; radiological union time
Notes	Study dates: January 2021 to January 2022 Funding sources: none Declarations of interest: none
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated random number tables
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Due to nature of intervention, treating surgeons and participants were not blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	No details of blinding of outcome assessors, and we assume there was no blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No apparent losses
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol or clinical trials registration reported. It is not feasible to effectively assess selective outcome reporting without these documents
Other bias	Low risk	We identified no other sources of bias