Wang 2019.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT; parallel design Review comparison group: PFNA vs DHS
Participants	Total number of randomised participants: 114 Inclusion criteria: diagnosed with intertrochanteric fractures on X‐ray; no cardiac accidents before admission; no cognitive disorder; preoperative BP and blood sugar (and other common diseases) controlled in a normal state Exclusion criteria: severe cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease; combined with other fractures; pathological fracture; mental illness before fracture; surgical contraindications Setting: hospital; single centre; China Baseline characteristics (overall) Age, mean (SD): 73.16 (± 3.47) years Gender, M/F: 43/71 Comorbidities, type, n: 50 had hypertension; 41 had diabetes Preoperative waiting time, mean (SD): 4.18 (± 0.72) days Fracture classification, n: Evans‐Jensen type 1: 33; type II: 32; type III: 32, and type IV: 8. All closed fractures Note: study authors reported only overall baseline characteristics. No data reported for: smoking history, medication, BMI, mobility assessment, place of residence; cognitive status, ASA status
Interventions	General details: all given antibiotics; epidural anaesthesia; on POD2, allowed to sit, half‐squat, sit up, turn over, and perform contractile functional exercises of active and passive muscle, as well as knee flexion and extension exercises Intervention group 1: PFNA; proximal locking was performed using a spiral blade which was locked statically; distal locking was performed through an aiming arm. Although the study report did not specifically report the length of nails, it is highly probable that all were short nails. Randomised = 57 Intervention group 2: DHS Randomised = 57
Outcomes	Outcomes measured/reported by study authors: operation time; volume of intraoperative blood loss; postoperative drainage volume; time to weight bearing; serum inflammatory markers; serum levels of MI markers and heart failure markers Outcomes relevant to the review: none
Notes	Funding/sponsor/declarations of interest: not reported Study dates: January 2016 to February 2018 Note: we did not conduct risk of bias assessment because study reported no review‐relevant outcomes.