Evidence-based rehabilitation after (peri-)articular fracture surgery
on the effectiveness of (parts of) these protocols, that
systemically describe the whole aftercare process. In
future, protocols including detailed information on
these components need to be realized in order to faci-
litate testing their (cost-)effectiveness and systematic
implementation in other centres.
REFERENCES
1. Burton DJC, Watters AT. Management of proximal humeral
fractures. Curr Orthop 2006; 20: 222–233.
2. Cuomo F, Zuckerman JD. Open reduction and internal fixa-
tion of two- and three- part proximal humerus fractures.
Tech Orthop 1994; 9: 141–153.
3. Jackins S. Postoperative shoulder rehabilitation. Phys Med
Rehabil Clin N Am 2004; 15: 643–682.
4. Maurer F, Mutter B, Weise K, Belzl H. Rehabilitation nach
Hüftgelenkfrakturen. Der Orthopäde 1997; 26: 368–374.
5. World Health Organization. International Classification of
Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva: World
Health Organization; 2001.
6. Van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L, Group
EBotCCBR. Updated method guidelines for systematic
reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group.
Spine 2003; 28: 1290–1299.
7. Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS.
The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based
decisions. ACP Journal Club 1995; 123: A12–A13.
8. Compito CA, Self EB, Bigliani LU. Arthroplasty and acute
shoulder trauma: Reasons for success and failure. Clin
Orthop Relat Res 1994; 307: 27–36.
9. Moeckel BH, Dines DM, Warren RF, Altchek DW. Modular
hemiarthroplasty for fractures of the proximal part of the
humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992; 74: 884–889.
10. Handoll H, Brealey S, Rangan A, Keding A, Corbacho B,
Jefferson L, et al. The ProFHER (PROximal Fracture of the
Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation) trial–a pragmatic
multicentre randomised controlled trial evaluating the
clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical
compared with non-surgical treatment for proximal
fracture of the humerus in adults. Health Technol Assess
2015; 19: 1–280.
11. Hughes M, Neer CS. Glenohumeral joint replacement and
rehabilitation. Phys Ther 1975; 55: 850–858.
12. Hindle KB, Whitcomb TJ, Briggs WO, Hong J. Proprioceptive
neuromuscular facilitation (PNF): Its mechanisms and
effects on range of motion and muscular function. J Hum
Kinet 2012; 31: 105–113.
13. Klein-Vogelbach S. Funktionelle Bewegungslehre. Berlin
Heidelberg New York: Springer; 1990.
14. Lowry V, Bureau NJ, Desmeules F, Roy J-S, Rouleau DM.
Acute proximal humeral fractures in adults. J Hand Ther
2017; 30: 158–166.
15. Limb D. Fractures of the proximal humerus: general consi-
derations and nonoperative management. Orthop Trauma
2013; 27: 131–137.
16. Wiedemann E, Schweiberer L. Die geschlossene Behand-
lung bei Humeruskopffrakturen: Indikation, Technik,
Grenzen. Der Orthopäde 1992; 21: 106–114.
Appendix 1. Van Tulder’s quality assessment system. From: Handoll et al. (10).
Internal validity
Patient selection
Were the eligibility criteria specified?
Treatment allocation:
Was a method of randomization performed?
Was the treatment allocation concealed?
Were the groups similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators?
Interventions
Were the index and control interventions explicitly described?
Was the care provider blinded for the intervention?
Were co-interventions avoided or comparable?
Was the compliance acceptable in all groups?
Was the patient blinded to the interventions?
Outcome measurement
Was the outcome assessor blinded to the interventions?
Were the outcome measures relevant?
Were adverse effects described?
Was the withdrawal/drop-out rate described and acceptable?
Timing follow-up measurements:
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Was a short-term follow-up measurement performed?
Was a long-term follow-up measurement performed?
Was the timing of the outcome assessment in both groups comparable?
Descriptive criteria Statistical criteria
0
1
1
Statistics
Was the sample size for each group described?
Did the analysis include an intention-to-treat analysis?
1
Were point estimates and measures of variability presented for the primary outcome measures?
Total Scores:
6/11
1
4/6
1
2/2
645
J Rehabil Med 51, 2019