Sylliaas 2012.

Study characteristics
Methods	Randomised controlled trial
Participants	Recruited from Ullevål University Hospital or Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, Norway. Period of study: unclear 95 participants Inclusion: in the intervention arm in previous trial (Sylliaas 2011; 12‐week intervention from 12 to 24 weeks post fracture); age at least 65 years; living at home; assessed as able to undergo physical therapy for the hip fracture by the responsible orthopaedic surgeon; scoring 23 or more (out of 30) on the Mini Mental State Examination. Exclusion: admitted from nursing homes, metastatic cancer or had sustained the hip fracture as part of a multi‐trauma, in an institution 3 months after the fracture, absent from 3‐month follow‐up for Sylliaas 2011 study. Age: mean (SD) 82.3 (5.8) % male: 19 Number lost to follow‐up: 5
Interventions	1. Intervention: 6 to 9 months after fracture: physiotherapist led programme, exercise class 1x/week and home programme at least once/week. Exercise class: 15‐minute warm‐up on cycle or treadmill. 45‐ to 60‐minute exercise session; 4 exercises (standing knee flexion, lunge, sitting knee extension and leg extension, with 3 sets of 10 reps at 80% of 1 RM, progressed every 3 weeks. Home programme: standing knee flexion and lunge exercises, resistance added via weight belts. 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: Timed Up and Go test Berg Balance Scale Sit to stand x10 Gait speed 6‐min walk test Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale SF‐12 mental and physical domains Maximum step height
Notes	All participants were recruited from those who completed a preceding 3‐month progressive strength‐training programme twice a week, in the intervention arm of Sylliaas 2011. Due to the resulting unit of analysis issues, we did not include data from this study in the meta‐analysis. Funding: Eastern Regional Health Authority funded the study Conflict of interest: nil
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "a new randomisation of the participants in the intervention arm was carried out". Assume this was the same method of randomisation as used in preceding trial (Sylliaas 2011), where "patients were assigned randomly by a computer‐generated list"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Assume this was the same method of randomisation as used in preceding trial (Sylliaas 2011), "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
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Observer‐reported outcomes, some judgement	Low risk	Adequate follow‐up and ITT analysis
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.