Summary of findings 2. Summary of findings: different types of intervention on mobility outcome, in‐hospital.

Different types of mobility strategies compared with control after hip fracture surgery, on mobility, in the in‐hospital setting
Patient or population: adults following hip fracture surgery Settings: in‐hospital Comparison: usual in‐hospital carea Outcome: mobility, measured using mobility scales, 6‐Minute Walk Test and Timed Up and Go testb
Intervention type (according to ProFaNE)c	Mobility outcome	Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
		Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
		Control	Intervention
Gait, balance and functional training     Follow‐up: range 5 days to 4 months	Mobility scales, using different mobility scales: MILA (range 0 to 36), EMS (range 0 to 20), BBS (range 0 to 56), PPME (range 0 to 12), Koval (range 1 to 7). Higher values indicate better mobility (except MILA and Koval, where scale was inverted for consistency with other outcomes).	In the control group, the mean scores for the outcomes were: MILA = 19.2; EMS = 16.3; BBS = 26; PPME = 6.8 to 9.1; Koval = 4.	SMD 0.57 higher (0.07 higher to 1.06 higher).	SMD 0.57 (0.07 to 1.06)	463 (6)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderated	Interventions classified as gait, balance and functional training probably cause a moderatee increase in mobility compared with control (SMD 0.57).   Re‐expressing the results using the 12‐point PPME, the intervention group scored 1.56 points higher (95% CI 0.02 to 2.92). MID for the PPME is typically 1.13 to 2.15 (de Morton 2008).
Resistance/strength training   Follow‐up: range 10 days to 4 months	Mobility scales, using EMS (range 0 to 20). Higher values indicate better mobility	The meanf score on the EMS in the control group was 17.	MD 1 point higher on the EMS (0.81 lower to 2.81 higher).	MD 1.0 (‐0.81 to 2.81)	44 (1)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowg	It is unclear whether resistance/strength training interventions increase mobility as the certainty of evidence is low and the 95% CI includes both a reduction and an increase in mobility.
	TUG (lower score = faster)	The mean TUG time in the control group was 25.4 seconds.	MD 1.5 second faster TUG time (6.4 seconds faster to 3.4 seconds slower)	MD ‐1.5 (‐6.4 to 3.4)	74 (1)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowh	It is unclear whether resistance/strength training interventions improve TUG as the certainty of evidence is low and the 95% CI includes both a reduction and an increase in score.
Flexibility					0		0 studies contained a mobility strategy categorised as primarily being flexibility.
3D (Tai Chi, dance)					0		0 studies contained a mobility strategy categorised as primarily being 3D.
General physical activity					0		0 studies contained a mobility strategy categorised as primarily being general physical activity.
Endurance					0		0 studies contained a mobility strategy categorised as primarily being endurance training.
Multiple types of exercise					0		0 studies contained a mobility strategy categorised as containing multiple types of exercise.
Electrical stimulation					0		0 studies contained a mobility strategy categorised as primarily being electrical stimulation.
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). BBS: Berg Balance Scale; CI: confidence interval; EMS: Elderly Mobility Scale; Koval: Koval Walking Ability Score; MD: mean difference; MID: minimally important difference; MILA: Modified Iowa Level of Assistance; PPME: Physical Performance and Mobility Examination; SMD: standardised mean difference; TUG: Timed Up and Go test
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

^aA control intervention may be: usual orthopaedic, medical care or allied health care.
^bMobility, measuring the ability of a person to move. Scales may measure a number of aspects of mobility (e.g. sit to stand, walking, turning, stairs). A higher score indicates better mobility.
^cMobility strategies involve postoperative care programmes such as immediate or delayed weight bearing after surgery, and any other mobilisation strategies, such as exercises, physical training and muscle stimulation, used at various stages in rehabilitation, which aim to improve walking and minimise functional impairments. We categorised the exercise and physical training strategies using the Prevention of Falls Network Europe (ProFaNE) guidelines, see Appendix 1. These categories are gait, balance and functional training; strength/resistance training; flexibility; 3D (Tai Chi, dance); general physical activity; endurance; multiple types of exercise; other. Electrical stimulation is an additional intervention type.
^dDowngraded one level for inconsistency (unexplained heterogeneity, I² = 84%).
^eCohen's effect size 0.2 is described as small, 0.5 as medium/moderate effect, 0.8 as large effect (Sawilowsky 2009).
^fMean was estimated from median for the single study.
^gDowngraded one level for risk of bias and one level for imprecision.
^hDowngraded one level for risk of bias and one level for imprecision.