Table 1.

Details of included studies

Characteristics of the studies
Study	Year	Implant	No. of patients	Nail	SHS	Mean agea (range)	% female	Length of follow-up	Stability/ failure	Methodology score
Adams [1]	2001	Gamma	400	203	197	81/80 (32-102)	78	12	Yes	12
Fornander [9]	1994	Gamma	209	105	104	79	72	6	No	7
Aune [4]	1994	Gamma	378	177	201	81 (45-46)	59	6	Yes	3
Bridle [6]	1991	Gamma	100	49	51	81/83	84	6	No	5
Butt [7]	1995	Gamma	95	47	48	79/78 (47-101)	69	<6	No	3
Goldhagen [19]	1994	Gamma	75	34	38	78 (28-91)	69	6 to 9	No	5
Guyer [19]	1993	Gamma	100	50	50	80	85	3	Yes	1
Haynes [19]	1996	Gamma	50	19	31	80	72	6	Yes	4
Hoffman [12]	1996	Gamma	67	31	36	83/79	76	6	Yes	12
Kukla [19]	1997	Gamma	120	60	60	83.4	85	6	Yes	10
Kuwabara [19]	1998	Gamma	43	20	23	83/80	72	6	No	3
Leung [13]	1992	Gamma	226	113	113	81/78	70	7	No	3
Lopez [19]	2002	Gamma	103	43	60	84	65	12	Yes	3
Michos [19]	2001	Gamma	52	26	26	79/78	NA	3 to 6	No	1
Mott [19]	1993	Gamma	69	35	34	76 (19-99)	58	NA	No	6
O’Brien [15]	1995	Gamma	102	53	49	83/77 (39-95)	74	12	No	7
Park [16]	1998	Gamma	60	30	30	74/72 (39-95)	60	18.5	No	5
Radford [20]	1993	Gamma	200	100	100	74/72	77	12	No	4
Baumgartner [5]	1998	IMHS	135	67	68	79 (40-99)	65	28	No	9
Hardy [10]	1998	IMHS	100	50	50	82/80	77	12	Yes	8
Harrington [11]	2001	IMHS	102	50	52	84/81	79	12	Yes	10
Hoffmann [19]	1999	IMHS	110	56	54	82	80	3.7	Yes	8
Mehdi [19]	2000	IMHS	180	90	90	78	NA	NA	No	2
Saudan [22]	2002	PFN	206	100	106	83/84	78	12	Yes	11

SHS sliding hip screw, IMHS intramedullary hip screw, PFN proximal femoral nail, NA not available

^aIf overall mean age not available, mean age of nail group and mean age of SHS group displayed, respectively