Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40355296›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2025

Effectiveness of a community-based rehabilitation programme following hip fracture: results from the Fracture in the Elderly Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation phase III (FEMuR III) randomised controlled trial.

Nefyn Williams, Monica Busse, Rachael Cooper, Susanna Dodd, Shanaz Dorkenoo, Kodchawan Doungsong, Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, Jessica Green, Ben Hardwick, Andrew Lemmey and 7 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter StudyClinical Trial, Phase III
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Nefyn WilliamsDepartment of Primary Care and Mental Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK nefyn.williams@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8078-409X
Monica BusseCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5331-5909
Rachael CooperLiverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Susanna DoddData Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Shanaz DorkenooInvolving People, Cardiff, UK.
Kodchawan DoungsongCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Rhiannon Tudor EdwardsCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4748-5730
Jessica GreenLiverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Ben HardwickLiverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Andrew LemmeySchool of Sports, Health and Exercise Science, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Phillipa LoganCommunity Health Sciences, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Valerie MorrisonBangor University, School of Psychology, Bangor, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4308-8976
Penelope RalphDepartment of Primary Care and Mental Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8714-2682
Catherine SackleyUniversity of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Benjamin Edward SmithPhysiotherapy Outpatients, Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4723-0028
Toby SmithUniversity of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1673-2954
Llinos Haf SpencerWelsh Institute for Health and Social Care, University of South Wales, Pontypridd, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7075-8015

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine whether an enhanced community rehabilitation intervention (the Fracture in the Elderly Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation (FEMuR) intervention) was more effective than usual National Health Service care, following surgical repair of hip fracture, in terms of the recovery of activities of daily living (ADLs).

designDefinitive, pragmatic, multisite, parallel-group, two-armed, superiority randomised controlled trial with 1:1 allocation ratio.

settingParticipant recruitment in 13 hospitals across England and Wales, with the FEMuR intervention delivered in the community.

participantsPatients aged over 60 years, with mental capacity, recovering from surgical treatment for hip fracture and living in their own home prior to fracture.

interventionsUsual rehabilitation care (control) was compared with usual rehabilitation care plus the FEMuR intervention, which comprised a patient-held workbook and goal-setting diary to improve self-efficacy, and six additional therapy sessions delivered in-person in the community, or remotely during COVID-19 restrictions (intervention), to increase the practice of exercise and ADL. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) scale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Falls Self-Efficacy-International scale, hip pain intensity, fear of falling, grip strength and Short Physical Performance Battery. Outcomes were collected by research assistants in participants' homes, whenever possible, but had to be collected remotely during COVID-19 restrictions.

resultsIn total, 205 participants were randomised (n=104 experimental; n=101 control). Trial processes were adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. There were 20 deaths, 34 withdrawals and three lost to follow-up. At 52 weeks, there was no significant difference in NEADL score between the FEMuR intervention and control groups. Joint modelling analysis testing for difference in longitudinal outcome adjusted for missing values also found no significant difference with a mean difference of 0.1 (95% CI -1.1, 1.3). There were no significant between-group differences in secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses, examining the impact of COVID-19 restrictions, produced similar results. A median of 4.5 extra rehabilitation sessions were delivered to the FEMuR intervention group, with a median of two sessions delivered in-person. Instrumental variable regression did not find any effect of the amount of rehabilitation on the main outcome. There were 53 unrelated serious adverse events (SAEs) including 11 deaths in the control group: 41 SAEs including nine deaths in the FEMuR intervention group.

conclusionsThe FEMuR intervention was not more effective than usual rehabilitation care. The trial was severely impacted by COVID-19. Possible reasons for lack of effect included limited intervention fidelity (fewer sessions than planned and remote delivery), lack of usual levels of support from health professionals and families, and change in recovery beliefs and behaviours during the pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN28376407.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingHip FracturesAgedAged, 80 and overCOVID-19EnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSARS-CoV-2Self EfficacyWalesFractures, ClosedHipPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled TrialREHABILITATION MEDICINE

Identifiers

PMID40355296
PMCPMC12083281

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.