Sanchez Ferrin 1999.

Study characteristics
Methods	Randomised using random number generator Assessor blinding: yes, blinded nurse at admission and discharge Length of follow‐up: 6 months
Participants	Teaching hospital in Barcelona, Spain. Conducted: April 1996 to June 1997 208 people with hip fracture. Of 206: 24% male. Mean age 82 years. Cognitive status: 61 had dementia (previous diagnosis). Inclusion criteria: patients with hip fracture admitted to hospital aged over 64 years; all but 2 had surgery. Study report clarified that patients with previous physical or psychiatric disabilities were not excluded. Exclusion criteria: patients in an unstable condition, usually from severe trauma, who were admitted to the intensive care unit Assigned: 104/104 [Geriatric unit intervention / Usual care] (2 of these, 1 in each group, who were transferred to another hospital immediately after surgery were excluded.) Assessed (6 months): 81/75 (derived from percentages for admission to institutional care) Loss to follow‐up = 23 versus 29 (death 47, exclusion 2, probably missing 3)
Interventions	Interventions started soon after surgery: mean 3.9 days (SD 10 days) after fracture admission. (1) Evaluation by the Functional Geriatric Unit (FGU) during hospitalisation. Initial basic geriatric assessment by nurse from the FGU within 48 hours of admission. Results of evaluation discussed during geriatric team meeting, where decisions were made about treatment and need for consultation from other professions in the team, e.g. geriatrician, social worker, physiotherapist, psychologist. It was the responsibility of the nurse and doctor to ensure the treatment and management recommendations were implemented, and to review results of investigations and specialist consultations sought at time of first visit. Note: medical geriatric review was not continuous – it occurred on a single session. (2) Usual care: under care of the Orthopaedics and Traumatic Surgery Service (OTSS), with consultations to other specialists as required. The OTSS team doctor decided which patients from each group needed referral to the Rehabilitation Service during their hospital stay. The geriatrician was also able to refer patients to this service. At discharge, appointments for outpatient physiotherapy were organised and made by the Rehabilitation service. All patients requiring post‐hospital care were discharged to the area Community Health Centre, which required assessment by the Functional Geriatric Unit prior to admission. Intervention and control group patients shared rooms and ward staff.
Outcomes	'Poor outcome': mortality at discharge or discharge to institutional care; mortality and institutional care admission at 6 months Other outcomes: mortality, ADL, mobility (goes out into street), complications (delirium; respiratory infection; urinary infection; dehydration; pressure sores; cardiac insufficiency; local complications), length of stay, discharge location, readmission, institutional care; specialist consultations
Funding and conflict of interest statements	No mention of funding. No conflict of interest statements provided.
Notes	This trial was excluded in Handoll 2009 as it was deemed as geriatric assessment, not multidisciplinary rehabilitation. However, the reduced level of geriatrician involvement was considered appropriate for inclusion in line with our revised inclusion criteria.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Translation: "Patient allocation to either group was carried out with the aid of a computer programme that generated random numbers."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Translation: "Patient allocation to either group was carried out with the aid of a computer programme that generated random numbers." No details of safeguards.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Death, residence, readmission	Unclear risk	Translation: “A nurse from outside the Unit and blinded to the patient’s group allocation, interviewed all patients at the time of admission and at discharge.” This included collection of residential status. Other outcomes also less susceptible.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Function, QOL	Low risk	Translation: “A nurse from outside the Unit and blinded to the patient’s group allocation, interviewed all patients at the time of admission and at discharge.”
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Death, residence, readmission	Unclear risk	Two patients who were transferred to another hospital immediately after surgery were excluded; this is unlikely to be a source of bias. Participant flow and losses to follow‐up are not reported. There are small numbers missing upon calculating denominators from percentages.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Function, QOL	Unclear risk	Two patients who were transferred to another hospital immediately after surgery were excluded; this is unlikely to be a source of bias. Participant flow and losses to follow‐up are not reported. There are small numbers missing upon calculating denominators from percentages.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Neither a published protocol nor trial registration document were available. The outcomes mentioned in the methods are presented in the results but selective reporting cannot be ruled out.
Free of bias resulting major imbalances at baseline	Unclear risk	Groups were comparable in most ways except proportionately more participants in the intervention group had dementia (37 (35.9%) versus 24 (23.3%)); probably also reflected in slightly higher numbers in residential accommodation (22 versus 15).
Free of performance bias (from non‐trial differences in care provision)?	Unclear risk	No information available. Staff appear to have been in common, which may reduce performance bias but also may increase the risk of ‘contamination’. Translation: “it was not possible to isolate the control group patients, given they shared rooms with the intervention group patients and were cared for by the same ward staff as the intervention group patients.” "11 control group patients were, in fact, assessed by the Unit nurse in order to effect an early discharge".
Free of detection bias (from e.g. differences in follow‐up procedures)?	Low risk	None apparent