Sylliaas 2011.

Study characteristics
Methods	Randomised controlled trial
Participants	Outpatient clinic, recruited from Ullevål University Hospital or Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, Norway. Period of study: June 2007 and June 2009 150 participants Inclusion: femoral neck fracture or a trochanteric fracture; 12 weeks after the operation: (i) age 65 years or older; (ii) living at home; (iii) able to undergo physical therapy for the hip fracture; and (iv) scoring 23 or more (out of 30) on the Mini Mental State Examination Age: mean (SD) 82.4 (5.7) % male: 17 Number lost to follow‐up: 12
Interventions	1. Intervention: 3 to 6 months after fracture: physiotherapist‐led programme, exercise class 2x/week and home programme at least once/week. 45‐ to 60‐minute exercise session, 15‐minute warm‐up on cycle or treadmill; 4 exercises (standing knee flexion, lunge, sitting knee extension and leg extension, with 3 sets of 15 reps at 70% of 1 RM, increasing to 8 to 10 reps at 80% of 1 RM at 3 weeks. Encouraged to walk approx. 30 minutes/day. 2. Control: participants were asked to maintain their current lifestyle. No restrictions were placed on their exercise activities.
Outcomes	12 weeks: 6‐Minute Walk Test Berg Balance Scale Sit to stand x10 Timed Up and Go test Gait speed Maximum step height Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale Short Form‐12 mental and physical domains
Notes	Funding: Eastern Regional Health Authority Conflict of interest: nil
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote "patients were assigned randomly by a computer‐generated list"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote "using lots in sealed opaque envelopes"
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	Assessor blinded to group allocation
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Participant/proxy‐reported outcomes	Unclear risk	Assessor blinded to group allocation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Observer‐reported outcomes, some judgement	Low risk	Adequate follow‐up and ITT analysis. Less than 20% of data missing
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Death, re‐admission, re‐operation, surgical complications, return to living at home	Low risk	Adequate follow‐up and ITT analysis. Less than 20% of data missing
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Participant/proxy‐reported outcomes	Low risk	Adequate follow‐up and ITT analysis. Less than 20% of data missing
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No trial protocol identified
Free from baseline imbalance bias?	Low risk	Groups balanced at baseline
Free from performance bias due to non‐trial interventions?	High risk	Social contact in intervention arm likely to confound any effect. An appropriate comparator would have been social home visits but no physical intervention.