Sherrington 2020.

Study characteristics
Methods	Randomised controlled trial, New South Wales (NSW), Australia
Participants	Community‐dwellers recruited after discharge from 11 hospitals and from community advertising in NSW, Australia Period of study: April 2010 to December 2015. 336 participants (194 with hip fracture, 31 with pelvic fracture, 111 with other fracture) Inclusion: community‐dwellers aged 60+ years within 2 years of lower‐limb or pelvic fracture Exclusion: resided in a high‐care residential facility (nursing home); cognitive impairment (a Folstein Mini Mental State Examination score of < 24); had insufficient English language to understand study procedures; unable to walk more than ten metres despite assistance from a walking aid and/or another person; medical condition precluding exercise; currently receiving a treatment programme from a rehabilitation facility. Age: mean 77.7 (8.7) % male: 24 Number lost to follow‐up: 52
Interventions	1. Intervention: individualised physiotherapist‐prescribed home programme of weight‐bearing balance and strength exercises, fall prevention advice based on Stepping On programme. 10 home visits (more frequent in first 3 months) and 5 phone calls to implement, review and progress programme. Exercise programme prescribed for 20 to 30 minutes, 3x/week. 2. Control: usual care
Outcomes	12 months Short Physical Performance Battery (score, plus individual components analysed: gait speed, balance, sit to stand x5) Balance (sum of feet together, semi tandem and tandem stance times) Falls Acute Measure for Post Acute Care Pain Mortality Quality of life
Notes	Inclusion criteria for study was recent lower‐limb or pelvic fracture. Only data from 194 participants with hip fracture were included in this review. Total n in study = 336. Funding: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Conflict of interest: Lord: Physiological Profile Assessment instrument is commercially available in Australia; Australian National Health and Medical Research Council funding for salary
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Randomization order was determined using a computer generated random number schedule with randomly permuted block sizes of 2–6".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Allocation was concealed by using central randomization performed by an investigator not involved in assessments or recruitment and the treatment allocation tables were inaccessible to recruitment staff".
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Therapists conducting the intervention and participants were not blinded to the group assignment. Impact of non‐blinding is unclear
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Observer‐reported outcomes, some judgement	Low risk	Quote: "Study staff who conducted interviews and assessments, received calendars and questionnaires, made phone calls and entered data were unaware of group allocation". "Participants were instructed not to inform the assessors of their intervention status, and all exercise equipment was removed prior to the final assessment".
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Observer‐reported outcomes, no judgement	Low risk	Quote: "Study staff who conducted interviews and assessments, received calendars and questionnaires, made phone calls and entered data were unaware of group allocation".
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Participant/proxy‐reported outcomes	Unclear risk	Health‐realated quality of life: blinded assessors. Falls ascertained by the same method in both groups. Participants reporting falls were not blind to group. Blinded assessors recorded and confirmed falls with participants. Impact of unblinded participant reporting of falls unclear
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Observer‐reported outcomes, some judgement	Low risk	Less than 20% of data lost to follow‐up
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Death, re‐admission, re‐operation, surgical complications, return to living at home	Low risk	Less than 20% of data lost to follow‐up
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Participant/proxy‐reported outcomes	Low risk	Less than 20% of data lost to follow‐up
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Outcomes in trial registry either reported or draft paper states they will be reported in subsequent paper (EuroQol‐5D, Short Form‐12)
Free from baseline imbalance bias?	Low risk	No notable difference between groups.
Free from performance bias due to non‐trial interventions?	High risk	Pragmatic trial, yet social contact in intervention arm likely to confound any effect
Method of ascertaining falls	Low risk	Monthly falls calendar. Participants who did not return calendars or who reported a fall were telephoned by blinded research assistants