==== Front Sci Rep Sci Rep Scientific Reports 2045-2322 Nature Publishing Group UK London 37386114 37509 10.1038/s41598-023-37509-y Article The effectiveness of optimal exercise-based strategy for patients with hip fracture: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis Pan Rong-jia 1 Gui Si-jie 2 He Yu-Lian 3 Nian Fang 1 Ni Xiao-Yan 2 Zhou Yan-hui 3 Wang Man-yi 1 Wu Jing-jing 1 Zeng Gu-qing zengguqing0123@163.com 1 Liang Jing-hong liangjh78@mail2.sysu.edu.cn 4 Peng Dan xyeypd@csu.edu.cn 2 1 grid.412017.1 0000 0001 0266 8918 School of Nursing, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, 28 West Changsheng Road, Hengyang, 421001 Hunan People’s Republic of China 2 grid.452708.c 0000 0004 1803 0208 Department of Orthopedics, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, 410011 Hunan People’s Republic of China 3 grid.412017.1 0000 0001 0266 8918 Department of Orthopedics and Trauma, the First Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001 Hunan People’s Republic of China 4 grid.12981.33 0000 0001 2360 039X Department of Maternal and Child Health, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-Sen University, No.74 Zhongshan 2nd Road, Yuexiu District, Guangzhou, 510080 China 29 6 2023 29 6 2023 2023 13 1052112 12 2022 22 6 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The implementation of exercise intervention (EI) presents a promising and economical way for patients with hip fracture. However, the optimal type of EI remains unclear. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of various EI approaches and identify the optimal intervention for improving the prognosis of patients with hip fracture. A comprehensive search of Medline (via PubMed), Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, CNKI, Wan Fang, VIP, and CBM was conducted from their earliest records to June 2022. The included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included at least one type of exercise for patients with hip fracture. The methodological quality of these trials was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. All direct and indirect comparisons were analyzed by Stata 14.0 and OpenBUGS 3.2.3 software. The primary outcome was hip function, and the secondary outcomes were activity of daily living (ADL), walking capacity and balance ability of patients. Based on the ranking probabilities, resistance exercise (RE) was ranked as the most effective among all exercise interventions (surface under cumulative ranking curve values [SUCRA]: 94.8%, [MD]: − 11.07, [Crl]: − 15.07 to − 7.08) in improving the efficacy of patients' hip function, followed by balance exercise (BE) ([SUCRA]:81.1%, [MD]: − 8.79, [Crl]: − 13.41 to − 4.18) and muscle strength exercise ([SUCRA]:57.6%, [MD]: − 5.35, [Crl]: − 9.70 to − 0.95). For the improvement of ADL for patients with hip fracture, BE ([SUCRA]:98.4%, [MD]: − 17.38, [Crl]: − 23.77 to − 11.04) may be the best EI. The findings of this study indicate that RE and BE might be the best approach to improve prognosis for patients with hip fracture. However, further rigorous and meticulously planned RCTs are required to substantiate the conclusions drawn from this study. Subject terms Trauma Fracture repair Geriatrics Public health Quality of life Genetics research Disability Hunan Provincial Department of EducationCX 20210964 Pan Rong-jia the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province2021JJ30586 Zeng Gu-qing the Project of Hunan Provincial Department of Finance[2022]44 Zeng Gu-qing issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2023 ==== Body pmcIntroduction Hip fracture is a severe, debilitating condition with increasing prevalence globally1. The mortality rate within 2 years after hip fracture is 32.7%2 and the risk of refracture within 3 years increases by 30–40%3. Moreover, the patient's physical function and walking ability are significantly reduced, and the ability to self-care is lost after hip fracture, which seriously affects the patient's quality of life4. With the acceleration of population aging, the medical and financial burden associated with hip fracture will be a major challenge for society and families5. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the prognosis and activities of daily living (ADL) for patients with hip fracture. There are several ways to promote recovery of patients after hip fracture, mainly including drug therapies, transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) and exercise-based interventions (EIs). Nonetheless, drug therapies might have potential side effects, such as bisphosphonates may cause a significant decrease in bone density and increase the risk of secondary fractures when taken continuously for 3–5 years6. Overdose of vitamin D might cause kidney stones or cardiovascular accidents, affecting the life of the patient7. TENS is a new non-invasive acupuncture treatment8, however, it is limited in terms of who can implement it and where it can be used, and it lacks home applicability and population universality. Furthermore, the scientific rationale and criteria for the selection of acupuncture points, frequency, and duration of stimulation remain unclear, inappropriate manipulations may diminish therapeutic effect9. EI mainly includes aerobic exercise (AE), resistance exercise (RE), muscle strength exercise (MSE), balance exercise (BE), and weight-bearing exercise (WBE)10,11. Previous studies proposed that EIs might have a positive effect on physical function in patients with hip fracture12,13. Experimental studies14 have suggested that EIs could maintain high peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ coactivator-1α levels, and inhibit in vivo Forkhead boxO3 induction, which reduces muscle atrophy, maintains muscle function and increases hip stability. More importantly, exercise as a promising treatment for patients with hip fracture was recommended by guidelines15. Consequently, EIs have been widely applied to patients with hip fracture due to its high safety and well-proven efficacy with few side effects. Although previous research has shown the prognostic value of EIs in patients with hip fracture, the evidence regarding the effectiveness of EIs remains fragmented and controversial. Firstly, studies have shown that EIs could improve ADL and walking ability of patients16, but Magaziner17 suggested that the improvement of ADL and walking ability of patients with hip fracture was not statistically significant after EIs. Due to some discrepancies in the results of previous RCTs, a high-quality meta-analyse is urgently needed to summarize the current clinical evidence. Secondly, there are many limitations to these studies, including single-center recruitment, small sample sizes, and limited follow-up times12,18, which to some extent affect their generalizability and accuracy for judging the efficacy of EIs, and their long-term effects still need to be confirmed. Thirdly, the single outcome indicator in the previous literature only reflects the efficacy of EI with hip fracture patients in a one-sided way19, which affects the medical staff to make an overall and comprehensive judgment on the efficacy of EIs and cannot meet the actual clinical needs. Finally, the optimal exercise type for patients with hip fracture is unclear as traditional meta-analyse mainly focus on comparisons of single EI20 and lacks direct comparisons of different EIs, it is difficult for healthcare professionals to develop the most effective exercise rehabilitation programs. Besides, in recent years, much literature has been published on EIs after hip fracture21,22, we urgently need to update the evidence to verify the effectiveness of the best interventions. Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a new method for comparing direct and indirect evidence that helps researchers gather evidence from multiple RCTs and compares the relative effectiveness of multiple interventions23. It overcomes the limitation of traditional pare-wise meta-analysis and ranks the probability of each intervention’s relative efficacy24. Our study aims to identify the optimal exercise-based strategy through a Bayesian NMA and provides a reference for policymakers and clinical researchers. Materials and methods The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses-Network Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-NMA) guidelines25 were followed when conducting and reporting our NMA (Supplement File S1). This study has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD4202022340737). Search strategies A systematic literature search was carried out in Medline (via PubMed), Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure database (CNKI), Web of Science, Wan Fang database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), China Science and Technology Journal Database and China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) until June 23rd, 2022. The search was not restricted by language and publication date. We used combined terms medical subject headings and text words around “hip fractures”, “resistance training”, “aerobic exercise”, “postural balance”, “muscle strength”, “weight-bearing exercise” and “randomized controlled trial” to search for relevant studies. In addition, in order to ensure the comprehensiveness of the search results, we manually searched the references of published meta-analyses and grey literature, such as conference proceedings and academic degree dissertations. The full search strategies were available in Supplement File S2. Inclusion criteria and literature screening According to the PICOS guidelines, we conducted a literature screening. The detailed inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) participants were diagnosed with hip fracture according to X-ray and computed tomography (CT) scan26; (2) the intervention group include anyone type of exercise intervention (such as AE, RE, BE); (3) the control group received usual care and did not receive a structured exercise intervention; (4) at least included one of the specified outcomes (hip function, ADL, walking capacity, balance ability); (5) study design is RCT. Exclusion criteria were as follow: (1) participants were complicated with other diseases, such as dementia; (2) mixed different interventions were reported in literature; (3) raw data were incomplete or could not be acquired in the literature; (4) study design was non-randomized clinical trials, case reports, reviews or protocols. The first step was to eliminate duplication using Endnote X9 software. Afterward, two researchers independently selected references by reading the titles and abstracts of references. Finally, we further screened the full texts of relevant studies. The disagreement was resolved by the third reviewer. Data extraction and outcomes measurement Two investigators independently extracted the data and cross-checked the results. The following data were extracted from each article: (1) title, journal, first author, year of publication; (2) age, gender and baseline condition of included participants; (3) sample size, intervention type, intervention duration, region of included studies; (4) the primary outcome and secondary outcomes for all the included studies. We have extracted data including mean values and standard deviation or standard error of the mean of inclusion studies. In the event of uncertainty regarding crucial information and data in included studies, the original researcher was contacted via email to procure necessary data for this study. The hip function of the patient was assessed as a primary outcome by the Harris hip scoring scale. Secondary outcomes included ADL, walking capacity and balance ability of the participants. ADL was measured by the Barthel index or ADL scale. Walking ability was measured by a six-minute walk test. Berg Balance Scale was used to measure balance ability. Risk of bias and quality assessment Two researchers independently assessed the risk of bias (ROB) for all included studies according to the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool27. These studies were graded as having low, high or unclear ROB based on the following items: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants, blinding of the outcome assessor, incomplete data, selective reporting, and other sources of bias. Data analyses The I2 statistic was used to determine the degree of heterogeneity between studies, with values of 25%, 50%, and 75% respectively representing low, moderate, and high heterogeneity28, respectively. We first judged whether the measurement tools were consistent between studies, then we presented continuous outcomes using weighted mean differences (WMD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence interval. If the standard deviation (SD) is missing,we estimate missing SD by standard errors, confidence interval, t-value, and P-value for single or combined conversion29,30. Transitivity assumption could further impact the validity of NMA31. We considered transitivity by assessing clinical and methodological comparability, such as subjects and study design. Parameters were assessed using maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference for indirect efficacy comparisons, we conducted NMA based on hierarchical Bayesian models to compare the effects of different EIs. The direct and indirect comparison results in a network diagram were presented using the method of multivariate meta-analysis32. Three Markov chains were initialized to assess convergence33, then the chain for 50,000 iterations was run and the first 20,000 Markov Chain Monte Carlo iterations were discarded as burn in34. Moreover, we assessed convergence of each parameter using trace history and Brooks–Gelman–Rubin diagnostic plots35. Besides, we compared the efficacy of various EIs in patients with hip fracture, and the effect size of each EI will be expressed as MD and 95% credible interval (95%CrI), we ranked the EIs effects according to the cumulative ranking probability curve (surface under the cumulative ranking area, SUCRA). A larger SUCRA value implies more effective interventions because SUCRA values reflect an intervention's effectiveness36. We assessed inconsistency by fitting both an inconsistency model and a consistency model. Node-splitting method was used to assess whether direct and indirect evidence on a specific node was in agreement37. If the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05), it indicated that the result of direct comparison and indirect comparison was consistent38. Publication bias were identified with funnel plots, whereby asymmetries in the funnel plot indicated publication bias39. All analyses were performed using Stata version 14.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) and OpenBUGS version 3.2.3. Results Baseline selection A total of 55,888 articles were identified after an initial database search and 20,743 studies were removed after the removal of duplicates. After the screening of titles and abstracts, 34,760 studies did not meet the eligibility criteria, afterward, a total of 390 articles were selected for full-text screening, 5 of which were from manual searches. After the full-text screening, 344 records were excluded due to various reasons: 32 studies enrolled the participants who were diagnosed with multiple fractures, 50 studies were not RCTs, 103 studies without including EIs that we defined in this study, 115 studies lacked appropriate outcomes, 44 studies reported the data that could not be extracted. Finally, 46 studies were included for NMA (Supplement File S3). The flow diagram of the PRISMA screening process was provided in Fig. 1.Figure 1 Selection of studies for inclusion. EI exercise-based intervention, HF hip fracture, NMA network meta-analysis, RCT randomized controlled trial. Characteristics of included trials Characteristics of the included studies in this NMA were presented in Table 1. Forty-six studies included 3,286 participants aged between 52 to 85 years and the data were published between 1997 and 2022. Moreover, participants were mostly female (56.9%) and most of the interventions lasted from 12 to 24 weeks. Regarding the regions where the research was carried out, 4 studies were conducted in the USA, 12 studies in Europe, 27 studies were in Asia and the remaining 3 in other regions.Table 1 The characteristics of studies included in the NMA. Study, year Participants (exercise vs control) Interventions Outcomes Type Sample size Age (EG)(x¯ ± s) Age (CG)(x¯ ± s) Gender (Female/male) Duration (week) Region Sherrington et al., 1997 WBE 21 vs 21 80.00 ± 8.10 77.10 ± 8.20 8/13 vs 1/20 4 Australia ① Hauer et al., 2002 RE 15 vs 13 81.70 ± 7.60 80.80 ± 7.00 NR 12 Germany ①②③④ Sherrington et al., 2003 WBE 41 vs 39 81.00 ± 7.00 81.10 ± 8.30 14/27 vs 12/27 2 Australia ①②③ Binderet al., 2004 RE 46 vs 44 80.00 ± 7.00 81.00 ± 8.00 13/33 vs 10/34 24 USA ①②③④ Suetta et al., 2004 RE 13 vs 12 69.00 68.00 7/6 vs 7/5 12 Denmark ①② Sherrington et al., 2004 WBE 40 vs 40 80.10 ± 7.50 77.20 ± 8.90 10/30 vs 6/34 4 Australia ①②③ Mangione et al., 2005 AE vs RE 12 vs 11vs10 79.80 ± 5.60/77.90 ± 7.90 77.80 ± 7.30 3/9/4 vs 2/8/7 12 USA ①③ Mard et al., 2008 MSE 23 vs 20 74.00 ± 6.00 74.00 ± 7.00 8/16 vs 6/16 12 Finland ① Mendelsohn et al., 2008 AE 10 vs 10 80.30 ± 7.40 81.10 ± 7.20 3/7 vs 3/7 4 USA ①②④ Portegijs et al., 2008 RE 23 vs 20 73.80 ± 6.60 74.10 ± 7.20 NR 12 Finland ①② Mangione et al., 2010 RE 14 vs 12 79.60 ± 5.90 82.00 ± 6.00 2/12 vs 3/9 10 USA ①③ Kui et al., 2011 WBE 78 vs 74 71.80 ± 3.70 72.30 ± 3.70 30/48 vs 23/51 12 China ④ Yan et al., 2012 BE 20 vs 20 62.70 ± 6.30 61.34 ± 5.20 7/13 vs 9/11 24 China ③ Singh et al., 2012 RE 62 vs 62 80.10 ± 10.10 78.40 ± 9.00 19/43 vs 20/42 48 Australia ③ Sylliaas et al., 2012 RE 48 vs 47 82.40 ± 6.50 82.20 ± 5.10 9/39 vs 10/38 12 Norway ①②③ Morishima et al., 2014 AE 14 vs 14 60.30 ± 7.40 59.90 ± 5.40 0/14 vs 0/14 12 Japan ① van Ooijen et al., 2016 AE 24 vs 23 82.90 ± 6.50 83.30 ± 8.00 8/16 vs 2/21 6 Netherlands ①③ Zhao et al., 2016 AE 60 vs 60 70.69 ± 8.76 70.15 ± 8.62 31/29 vs 32/28 12 China ③④ Xing et al., 2016 AE 50 vs 50 70.69 ± 8.76 70.15 ± 8.62 24/26 vs 24/26 12 China ③④ Zhang et al., 2017 MSE 30 vs 30 67.43 ± 2.81 68.27 ± 3.38 18/12 vs 16/14 2 China ③④ Xu et al., 2017 BE 35 vs 35 63.43 ± 7.20 64.20 ± 8.48 21/14 vs 20/15 24 China ②④ Monticone et al., 2018 RE 26 vs 26 77.20 ± 6.60 77.70 ± 7.50 7/19 vs 8/18 3 Italy ②③④ Wang et al., 2019 RE 53 vs 53 67.20 ± 2.10 66.10 ± 2.50 22/31 vs 21/32 12 China ③④ Kang et al., 2019 AE 34 vs 34 57.19 ± 10.08 55.71 ± 10.91 21/13 vs 20/14 48 China ③④ Wu et al., 2019 AE 50 vs 50 71.64 ± 5.59 71.42 ± 7.20 16/34 vs 17/33 72 China ③④ Dong et al., 2019 AE 46 vs 46 60.34 ± 2.19 60.78 ± 2.23 38/8 vs 37/9 12 China ③④ Stasi et al., 2019 AE 48 vs 48 77.50 ± 4.00 77.50 ± 4.50 12/36 vs 12/36 12 Greece ① Cai et al., 2020 MSE 49 vs 49 66.53 ± 5.71 65.71 ± 6.32 19/30 vs 20/29 12 China ①③④ Xu et al., 2020 BE 42 vs 41 67.26 ± 3.29 67.58 ± 3.61 25/17 vs 23/18 24 China ②④ Qin et al., 2020 RE 43 vs 37 67.77 ± 3.22 68.34 ± 3.05 22/21 vs 18/19 12 China ③④ Oh et al., 2020 RE 19 vs 19 76.94 ± 9.43 81.15 ± 4.90 6/13 vs 6/13 1.5 Korea ②③④ Kim et al., 2020 AE 17 vs 17 52.82 ± 5.96 51.82 ± 5.91 13/4 vs 13/4 4 Korea ④ Wang et al., 2020 WBE 41 vs 41 51.50 ± 1.40 49.50 ± 1.80 25/16 vs 27/14 12 China ③④ Chi et al., 2020 WBE 38 vs 38 69.83 ± 4.12 70.15 ± 3.82 23/15 vs 24/14 12 China ③④ Sun et al., 2020 MSE 47 vs 43 68.73 ± 6.92 68.07 ± 7.01 25/22 vs 22/21 16 China ③④ Li et al., 2020 MSE 40 vs 40 64.77 ± 8.21 64.65 ± 8.65 21/19 vs 23/17 12 China ③④ Xu et al., 2021 RE 49 vs 49 72.34 ± 6.23 73.18 ± 6.82 29/20 vs 26/23 8 China ③④ Liu et al., 2021 BE 63 vs 62 64.71 ± 5.19 63.85 ± 5.43 28/35 vs 27/35 24 China ②④ Guo et al., 2021 BE 33 vs 33 68.54 ± 3.01 68.56 ± 3.02 16/17 vs 15/18 4 China ②③④ Ding et al., 2021 AE 40 vs 40 69.87 ± 8.81 70.21 ± 8.60 22/18 vs 21/19 12 China ③④ Wang et al., 2021 AE 49 vs 49 70.63 ± 6.96 70.05 ± 6.52 35/14 vs 31/18 12 China ③④ Corna et al., 2021 WBE 20 vs 20 83.60 ± 6.70 85.70 ± 8.40 5/15 vs 5/15 3 Italy ④ Paulsson et al., 2021 WBE 11 vs 18 79.20 ± 9.00 81.30 ± 8.00 1/10 vs 3/15 8 Sweden ③④ Overgaard et al., 2022 MSE 50 vs 50 78.30 ± 7.90 75.70 ± 8.10 6/44 vs 13/37 12 Denmark ①②③ Yan et al., 2022 MSE 50 vs 50 68.87 ± 6.27 67.19 ± 6.87 27/23 vs 24/26 9 China ③④ Li et al., 2022 RE 20 vs 20 54.08 ± 2.73 52.18 ± 3.01 15/5 vs 12/8 4 China ③④ AE aerobic exercise, BE balance exercise, CG control group, EG experimental group, MSE muscle strength exercise, NR not reported, RE resistance exercise, WBE weight-bearing exercise; ①, walking capacity;②, balance ability;③, activity of daily living;④, hip function. Network meta-analysis Evidence networks about four outcome indicators were shown in Fig. 2. One of the evidence networks was a three-arm study, the others were two-arm studies. The size of the dots represented different EIs and the lines connecting them represented the direct comparison of EIs.Figure 2 Network meta-analysis of eligible comparisons for hip function (A), activities of daily living (B), walking capacity (C), and balance ability (D). Primary outcome and secondary outcome The primary clinical outcome for our study was hip function, 31 studies (2395 participants) were included. RE (MD = − 11.07, 95%CrI: − 15.07, − 7.08), BE (MD = − 8.79, 95%CrI: − 13.41, − 4.18), MSE (MD = − 5.35, 95%CrI: − 9.70, − 0.95) showed statistically significant benefits compared with control group (CG). Besides, RE (MD = − 8.86, 95%CrI: − 15.01, − 2.71) (MD = − 9.09, 95%CrI: − 14.20, − 3.98) were superior to WBE and AE. BE (MD = − 6.58, 95%CrI: − 13.12, − 0.02) (MD = − 6.81, 95%CrI: − 12.42, − 1.22) was significantly better than WBE and AE. Based on the effectiveness of prognosis for patients with hip fracture, we employed SUCRA to rank five interventions: RE (94.8%) and BE (81.1%) were significantly effective, MSE (57.6%) and WBE (31.3%) had relatively low efficacy, AE (29.5%) was efficacy while CG (5.9%) (Table 2 and Supplement Fig. S1). No obvious heterogeneity was detected for hip function (SD = 0.1987). The test of global inconsistency did not show any significant difference for the hip function (p-value = 0.5572). The funnel plots did not show symmetric distribution, indicating a hint of publication bias (Supplement Fig. S2).Table 2 Relative effect sizes of different exercise interventions’ efficacy based on hip function. Comparative effectiveness results for hip function. Each cell shows an MD with a 95%CrI. Some numbers at the top of boxes are SUCRA values. The dark blue boxes indicate the type of campaign intervention, blue grey boxes represent significant pairwise comparisons were highlighted. AE aerobic exercise, BE balance exercise, CG control group, Crl credibility interval, MD mean difference, MSE muscle strength exercise, RE resistance exercise, SUCRA surface under cumulative ranking curve values, WBE weight-bearing exercise. The secondary outcomes of this study were ADL, walking capacity and balance ability. For ADL, 33 studies (2,496 participants) were included. BE (MD = − 17.38, 95%CrI: − 23.77, − 11.04), WBE (MD = − 9.66, 95%CrI: − 13.99, − 5.32), RE (MD = − 7.73, 95%CrI: − 10.88, − 4.58), MSE (MD = − 4.96, 95%CrI: − 9.27, − 0.67), AE (MD = − 4.64, 95%CrI: − 8.23, − 1.04) were significant than the CG. In addition, BE was significantly superior to WBE, RE, MSE, AE in improving patients’ ADL. The SUCRA analysis indicated that BE (98.4%) had the highest probability of being the most effective EI, followed by, WBE (73.4%), RE (59.8%), MSE (35.2%), AE (31.8%). (Supplement Fig. S3 and Table S1) No obvious heterogeneity was detected for ADL (SD = 0.1865). The results of the inconsistency test (inconsistency factor [IF] = 0.09, 95% confidence interval[95%CI]:0.00 to 4.06) showed no inconsistency for the outcome of ADL (Supplement Fig. S4). The examination results of the funnel plot for ADL indicated that there was publication bias. (Supplement Fig. S5). The remaining two outcome indicators for the EIs were walking capacity and balance ability. RE (MD = − 4.97, 95%CrI: − 8.51, − 1.44) could significantly improve the walking capacity of patients compared with that of CG. Moreover, the study results indicated that BE (MD = − 7.98, 95%CrI: − 11.77, − 4.23) and RE (MD = − 5.87, 95%CrI: − 9.27, − 2.44) were more effective than CG in improving walking capacity and balance ability (Supplement Tables S2 and S3). The SUCRA values resulting in top-ranked classes for walking capacity were RE (81.9%) and for balance ability were BE (88.4%) (Supplement Fig. S6). For walking capacity, the result of the inconsistency test (IF = 0.22, 95%CI 0.00 to 2.32) was shown in Supplement Fig. S7. No obvious heterogeneity was detected for walking capacity (SD = 0.1661). For balance ability, no inconsistency was found through global and loop-specific approach (p-value = 0.8547). Mild heterogeneity was detected for balance ability (SD = 0.5814). A comparison-adjusted funnel plot of walking capacity and balance ability were displayed in Supplement Fig. S8, indicating the existence of publication bias. Quality of the included studies Details of the ROB assessments were presented in Supplement Figs. S9 and S10. Thirty-nine studies described the methods for random sequence generation in detail and only 19 studies described the allocation concealment. Blinding was designed for participants and investigators in 14 studies and outcome assessors in 16 studies. The outcomes of 41 studies were largely complete, and detailed descriptions were made of the rates and reasons for loss to follow-up. Thirty-four studies reported all prespecified (primary and secondary) outcomes in detail. In the 39 studies, the baseline data of the intervention group and the control group were comparable. Discussion This NMA confirmed that EIs were beneficial for hip fracture patients' hip function, ADL, walking capacity and balance ability. Furthermore, we found that RE and BE were the most effective rehabilitation exercises for functional recovery and capacity improvement after surgery. In our study, RE (SUCRA: 94.8%) and BE (SUCRA: 81.1%) were beneficial to hip function of patients. In comparison with CG in included studies, BE (SUCRA: 88.4%) and RE (SUCRA: 66.1%) were more effective in improving balance ability of patients. Meta-analysis showed that RE could improve physical function, balance, lower-limb strength in patients with hip fracture40,41, which is consistent with the results of our study. Hermann42 also reported that progressive explosive-type RTs could significantly reduce exercise-related pain and increase leg muscle power, thus maintain body balance. Although the potential mechanism for RE improving balance ability and hip function is unclear, some findings have shown that RE activated the PI3K/Akt/mTOR and AMPK/Sirt1 signaling pathways and inhibited the NFκB/NLRP3/IL-1β signaling pathway, in addition, it also increased muscle oxygen consumption, induced muscle protein synthesis, and increased skeletal muscle mass and function43. Moreover, RE also downregulated the autophagy-specific protein LC31/LC3-1 ratio, reduced p62 protein levels and increased autophagy-regulating proteins such as Beclin1, ATG5\12\7, improved myocyte autophagy impairment and helped to maintain skeletal muscle strength and muscle mass44. Adequate muscle and bone mass is important for maintaining hip function and balance in postural maintenance and dynamic daily activities, several mechanisms explained that RE had a beneficial effect on patients with hip fracture. In addition, RE of the muscles around the hip can be effective in improving hip function by gradually increasing joint mobility, increasing the amount of movement and preventing joint adhesions45. BE aims to maintain gait stability and prevent fall occurrence, including multiple types of balance exercises, such as single-leg standing balance, balance capacity after sudden perturbation, and postural control46. Unipedal standing BE was applied to 527 elderly patients47, which demonstrated the effectiveness of preventing falls and improving balance ability. Our results also agreed well with those of a previous study by Lima48. BE could strengthen the coordination and balance after hip fracture by enhancing erector spinae and gluteus medius muscle activity49. Furthermore, BE could reduce overactive proprioceptive feedback and restore vestibular orientation in patients50, which helped to prevent the occurrence of falls and maintain balance. Aging could cause joint stiffness and impair muscle strength, which are all risk factors for balance51. The implementation of BE may result in heightened muscle strength, notable advancements in the patient's capacity to shift their center of gravity, improved postural stability and balance, expedited functional recuperation of the lower extremities, and enhanced mobility of the hip joint and hip function. Based on the cumulative ranking results, BE (SUCRA: 98.4%) and WBE (SUCRA: 73.4%) were superior to CG in improving ADL of patients. BE is an inexpensive and effective treatment means for hip fracture, its effectiveness in improving ADL is gradually being proved52, which is in agreement with our study results. This may be related to the fact that BE enables the patient to gradually perform bed-chair transfers and sit-to-stand transfers independently, thereby improving the patient's trunk control and ADL53. WBE has been regarded as the principal physical activity for promoting bone health54. The findings of our study indicate that WBE rank second in terms of effectiveness in enhancing ADL among patients, after BE. Warren55 compared WBE group with the non-weight-bearing group found that early WBE could improve physical fitness and mobility, and directly facilitate the improvement of ADL. This may be early WBE can stimulate the proliferation and differentiation of osteoblasts, accelerate bone tissue growth, promote functional recovery, and thus improve ADL56,57. However, in the affected limb, excessive WBE might lead to osteonecrosis or delayed healing. Therefore, there is a lack of consensus on WBE standards, and relevant research should be strengthened in the future to fill this gap. The results of SUCRA showed that RE and MSE have better efficacy in improving walking capacity for patients with hip fracture. It might relate to the mechanism that RE activates Akt activity and FGF21 gene, reduces skeletal muscle decay, maintains joint mobility and improves walking capacity58. MSE for patients recovering from hip fracture may be necessary to further reduce skeletal muscle inflammation and improve muscle function. MSE is based on a correct biomechanical and kinematic analysis to train the patient in muscle strength and hip stability. Mitchell59 implemented quadriceps’ strength training, the result suggested that the knee strength of the patients in the trained group significantly increased (157%) during quadriceps extension compared with that in the untrained group (63%). Furthermore, a systematic review60 has shown that quadriceps training programmers can improve leg extensor power and walking efficiency. The possible mechanism was that MSE could promote the proliferation of activated satellite cells and produce new myocytes61. Therefore, MSE could improve muscle strength and coordination, restore the greater walking ability to the patient. Furthermore, patients were prone to sedentary behavior after hip fracture, which would cause a more pronounced decrease in the number and strength of muscle fibers, and lead to muscle atrophy62, targeted muscle training might prevent symptoms from getting worse. However, the RCT literature included in this study had a short follow-up period, further high‐quality and long-term follow-up RCTs were recommended to examine long‐term effectiveness and benefits for patients with hip fracture. With the aging of the population and the extension of life expectancy, the incidence of hip fracture is increasing. EIs have become a crucial means of enhancing hip function and ADL in hip fracture patients. This research has discovered that RE and BE are the most effective EIs for improving hip function and ADL in hip fracture patients, with broad applicability, cost-effectiveness, and comprehensiveness. Besides, they are suitable for implementation in both in-hospital and home-based rehabilitation settings. Therefore, this study provides novel evidence for hip fracture rehabilitation and holds significant reference value for promoting patient recovery. Strengths and limitations The present study has the following strengths. First, our study is the first time to use NMA to verify the effectiveness of different EIs after hip fracture, and made up for the inadequacies of traditional meta-analysis in indirectly comparing multiple interventions. The language and publication date were not restricted in our study, our literature search strategy used multiple databases to identify as many studies as possible, the sample size is large and representative. The limitations of our study should be discussed. A key limitation is the findings of our NMA that might have been influenced by large heterogeneity reported from different included studies, for example, some of them lacked the blindness in participation, intervenors or outcome assessors. Additionally, there was no standardized definition for nursing measures for the control group, in the included literature, some controls were given usual care and some literature controls were given usual physical activity, which led to uncertainty in the results of the study. Ultimately, the elderly population represents a demographic with a heightened likelihood of experiencing hip fractures. However, upon conducting a literature search, it was discovered that individuals within the age range of 50 to 60 years were at increased risk for hip fracture. Given the wide dissemination of the results, we incorporated this population into our study, not solely consisting of the elderly population. Given the rapidly expanding population of older adults worldwide and the potential advantages of EI, including its cost-effectiveness, safety considerations and potential benefits, it is imperative to refine EI programs and conduct high-quality EIs for patients with hip fracture in the future research. We believe that our study provides evidence with rehabilitation success of patients with hip fracture. As an illustration, a study published subsequent to our literature search period had highlighted the effectiveness of EIs, gait and muscle strength were improved significantly for patients with hip fracture after 16-week intervention63. Hence, our research has the potential for fueling subsequent developments and research in the field of hip fracture rehabilitation, it is expected to be widely used in orthopaedic rehabilitation field and provides novel evidence and reference values. The results of this study help healthcare practitioners to formulate optimal rehabilitation protocols for patients with hip fractures, which promotes optimal care for patients with hip fractures. Conclusions and implications In summary, our study might provide strong evidence about RE as the optimal intervention in improving hip function for patients with hip fracture and offers implications for future studies. In addition, we have demonstrated that BE can improve ADL and balance for patients. However, due to insufficient literature numbers and moderate quality of studies, the results should be interpreted cautiously. Among the multitudinous exercise-based strategies, RE and BE as two of the most promising perspectives should continue to be explored and applied. Supplementary Information Supplementary Information. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-023-37509-y. Acknowledgements The authors thank all the reviewers for their assistance and support. Author contributions R.P. served as principal author and had full access to all the data in the study, taking responsibility for the accuracy of the data analysis, and the integrity of the data. Y.H. and S.G. contributed to the conception and design. F.N., X.N. and Y.Z. contributed to data acquisition and interpretation. M.W. and J.W. contributed to draft of the manuscript. G.Z., J.L. and D.P. contributed to revising the article and final approval. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Funding This research was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (Grant number: 2021JJ30586), Hunan Provincial Department of Education (CX 20210964), and the Project of Hunan Provincial Department of Finance (Grant number: [2022]). Data availability All other data is available in the Supplementary Information files. Any further information is available upon request from the corresponding author. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. These authors contributed equally: Rong-jia Pan, Si-jie Gui and Yu-Lian He. ==== Refs References 1. Veronese N Maggi S Epidemiology and social costs of hip fracture Injury 2018 49 1458 1460 10.1016/j.injury.2018.04.015 29699731 2. Barceló M Torres OH Mascaró J Casademont J Hip fracture and mortality: Study of specific causes of death and risk factors Arch. Osteoporos. 2021 16 15 10.1007/s11657-020-00873-7 33452949 3. Bliuc D Mortality risk associated with low-trauma osteoporotic fracture and subsequent fracture in men and women JAMA 2009 301 513 521 10.1001/jama.2009.50 19190316 4. Cogan AM Association of length of stay, recovery rate, and therapy time per day with functional outcomes after hip fracture surgery JAMA Netw. Open 2020 3 e1919672 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.19672 31977059 5. Zhang C Incidence of and trends in hip fracture among adults in urban China: A nationwide retrospective cohort study PLoS Med. 2020 17 e1003180 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003180 32760065 6. Kennel KA Drake MT Adverse effects of bisphosphonates: Implications for osteoporosis management Mayo Clin. Proc. 2009 84 632 637 10.1016/s0025-6196(11)60752-0 19567717 7. Fuggle NR Assessment of cardiovascular safety of anti-osteoporosis drugs Drugs 2020 80 1537 1552 10.1007/s40265-020-01364-2 32725307 8. Francis RP Johnson MI The characteristics of acupuncture-like transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (acupuncture-like TENS): A literature review Acupunct. Electrother. Res. 2011 36 231 258 10.3727/036012911803634139 22443026 9. Megía García, Á. et al. Analgesic effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in patients with fibromyalgia: A systematic review. Aten Primaria 51, 406–415. 10.1016/j.aprim.2018.03.010(2019). 10. Soukkio PK Effects of a 12-month home-based exercise program on functioning after hip fracture: Secondary analyses of an RCT J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2022 10.1111/jgs.17824 35582993 11. Jones GR Jakobi JM Taylor AW Petrella RJ Vandervoort AA Community exercise program for older adults recovering from hip fracture: A pilot study J. Aging Phys. Act. 2006 14 439 455 10.1123/japa.14.4.439 17215561 12. Zhang X Butts WJ You T Exercise interventions, physical function, and mobility after hip fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis Disabil. Rehabil. 2021 10.1080/09638288.2021.1924299 34232798 13. Kuijlaars IAR Effectiveness of supervised home-based exercise therapy compared to a control intervention on functions, activities, and participation in older patients after hip fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2019 100 101 114.e106 10.1016/j.apmr.2018.05.006 29885311 14. Souza RW Aerobic exercise training prevents heart failure-induced skeletal muscle atrophy by anti-catabolic, but not anabolic actions PLoS ONE 2014 9 e110020 10.1371/journal.pone.0110020 25330387 15. Min K Clinical practice guideline for postoperative rehabilitation in older patients with hip fractures Ann. Rehabil. Med.-Arm 2021 45 225 259 10.5535/arm.21110 34233406 16. Latham NK Effect of a home-based exercise program on functional recovery following rehabilitation after hip fracture: A randomized clinical trial JAMA 2014 311 700 708 10.1001/jama.2014.469 24549550 17. Magaziner J Effect of a multicomponent home-based physical therapy intervention on ambulation after hip fracture in older adults: The CAP randomized clinical trial JAMA 2019 322 946 956 10.1001/jama.2019.12964 31503309 18. Lee SY Jung SH Lee SU Ha YC Lim JY Effect of balance training after hip fracture surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies J. Gerontol. A 2019 74 1679 1685 10.1093/gerona/gly271 19. Beckmann M Effect of exercise interventions in the early phase to improve physical function after hip fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis Physiotherapy 2020 108 90 97 10.1016/j.physio.2020.04.009 32726713 20. Hejazi K Askari R Hofmeister M Effects of physical exercise on bone mineral density in older postmenopausal women: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Arch. Osteoporos. 2022 17 102 10.1007/s11657-022-01140-7 35896850 21. Overgaard JA Kallemose T Mangione KK Kristensen MT 2021 Six versus 12 weeks of outpatient physical therapy including progressive resistance training in cognitively intact older adults after hip fracture: A multicenter randomized controlled trial J. Gerontol. A 10.1093/gerona/glab256 22. Mutchie HL Four square step test performance in hip fracture patients J. Geriatr. Phys. Ther. 2022 45 81 89 10.1519/jpt.0000000000000310 33935219 23. Yang A Pechlivanoglou P Aoyama K Interpreting and assessing confidence in network meta-analysis results: An introduction for clinicians J. Anesth. 2022 36 524 531 10.1007/s00540-022-03072-5 35641661 24. Rouse B Chaimani A Li T Network meta-analysis: An introduction for clinicians Intern. Emerg. Med. 2017 12 103 111 10.1007/s11739-016-1583-7 27913917 25. Hutton B The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: Checklist and explanations Ann. Intern. Med. 2015 162 777 784 10.7326/m14-2385 26030634 26. LeBlanc KE Muncie HL Jr LeBlanc LL Hip fracture: Diagnosis, treatment, and secondary prevention Am. Fam. Physician 2014 89 945 951 25162161 27. Higgins JP The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials Bmj 2014 343 d5928 10.1136/bmj.d5928 28. Melsen WG Bootsma MC Rovers MM Bonten MJ The effects of clinical and statistical heterogeneity on the predictive values of results from meta-analyses Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2014 20 123 129 10.1111/1469-0691.12494 24320992 29. Higgins, J. & Green S. R. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions Version 5.1.0. (2011). 30. Egger M Juni P Bartlett C Holenstein F Sterne J How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study Health Technol. Assess. 2003 7 1 76 10.3310/hta7010 12583822 31. Salanti G Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: Many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool Res. Synth. Methods 2012 3 80 97 10.1002/jrsm.1037 26062083 32. Jansen JP Naci H Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers BMC Med. 2013 11 159 10.1186/1741-7015-11-159 23826681 33. Gelman A Rubin DB Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences Stat. Sci. 1992 7 457 472 10.1214/ss/1177011136 34. Kneib T Fahrmeir L Structured additive regression for categorical space-time data: A mixed model approach Biometrics 2006 62 109 118 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2005.00392.x 16542236 35. Brooks SP Gelman A General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 1998 7 434 455 36. Rücker G Schwarzer G Ranking treatments in frequentist network meta-analysis works without resampling methods BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2015 15 58 10.1186/s12874-015-0060-8 26227148 37. van Valkenhoef G Dias S Ades AE Welton NJ Automated generation of node-splitting models for assessment of inconsistency in network meta-analysis Res. Synth. Methods 2016 7 80 93 10.1002/jrsm.1167 26461181 38. Stang A Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2010 25 603 605 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z 20652370 39. Sterne JA Egger M Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: Guidelines on choice of axis J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2001 54 1046 1055 10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00377-8 11576817 40. Ponzano M Progressive resistance training for improving health-related outcomes in people at risk of fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Phys. Ther. 2021 101 221 10.1093/ptj/pzaa221 41. Lee, S. Y., Yoon, B.-H., Beom, J., Ha, Y.-C. & Lim, J.-Y. Effect of lower-limb progressive resistance exercise after hip fracture surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 18,1096. 10.1016/j.jamda.2017.08.021 (2017). 42. Hermann A Holsgaard-Larsen A Zerahn B Mejdahl S Overgaard S Preoperative progressive explosive-type resistance training is feasible and effective in patients with hip osteoarthritis scheduled for total hip arthroplasty: A randomized controlled trial Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2016 24 91 98 10.1016/j.joca.2015.07.030 26285180 43. Li J Mechanisms of aerobic exercise upregulating the expression of hippocampal synaptic plasticity-associated proteins in diabetic rats Neural Plast. 2019 2019 7920540 10.1155/2019/7920540 30911292 44. Kwon I Lee Y Cosio-Lima LM Cho JY Yeom DC Effects of long-term resistance exercise training on autophagy in rat skeletal muscle of chloroquine-induced sporadic inclusion body myositis J. Exerc. Nutr. Biochem. 2015 19 225 234 10.5717/jenb.2015.15090710 45. Skoffer B Dalgas U Mechlenburg I Progressive resistance training before and after total hip and knee arthroplasty: A systematic review Clin. Rehabil. 2015 29 14 29 10.1177/0269215514537093 24994766 46. Levinger P High-speed resistance training and balance training for people with knee osteoarthritis to reduce falls risk: Study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial Trials 2017 18 384 10.1186/s13063-017-2129-7 28821271 47. Sakamoto K Effects of unipedal standing balance exercise on the prevention of falls and hip fracture among clinically defined high-risk elderly individuals: A randomized controlled trial J. Orthop. Sci. 2006 11 467 472 10.1007/s00776-006-1057-2 17013734 48. Lima CA Perracini MR Funabashi M Weber S Beaupre L Domains of balance training delivered in rehabilitation programs following hip fracture surgery in older adults: A systematic review J. Geriatr. Phys. Ther. 2022 45 90 106 10.1519/jpt.0000000000000286 33534338 49. Jang SH Lee JH Impact of sensory integration training on balance among stroke patients: Sensory integration training on balance among stroke patients Open Med. (Wars) 2016 11 330 335 10.1515/med-2016-0061 28352817 50. Wiesmeier IK Balance training enhances vestibular function and reduces overactive proprioceptive feedback in elderly Front. Aging Neurosci. 2017 9 273 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00273 28848430 51. Mora JC Valencia WM Exercise and older adults Clin. Geriatr. Med. 2018 34 145 162 10.1016/j.cger.2017.08.007 29129214 52. Wu JQ Mao LB Wu J Efficacy of balance training for hip fracture patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2019 14 83 10.1186/s13018-019-1125-x 30894205 53. Peterson MD Recumbent cross-training is a feasible and safe mode of physical activity for significantly motor-impaired adults with cerebral palsy Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2013 94 401 407 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.09.027 23063881 54. Kim SJ Kim SN Yang YN Lee IS Koh SE Effect of weight bearing exercise to improve bone mineral density in children with cerebral palsy: A meta-analysis J. Musculoskelet. Neuronal. Interact. 2017 17 334 340 29199195 55. Warren J The association between weight-bearing status and early complications in hip fractures Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2019 29 1419 1427 10.1007/s00590-019-02453-z 31134326 56. Houben, I. B., Raaben, M., Van BastenBatenburg, M. & Blokhuis, T. J. (2018). Delay in weight bearing in surgically treated tibial shaft fractures is associated with impaired healing: a cohort analysis of 166 tibial fractures. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 28, 1429–1436, doi: 10.1007/s00590-018-2190-2 57. Solomon LB Weight-bearing-induced displacement and migration over time of fracture fragments following split depression fractures of the lateral tibial plateau: A case series with radiostereometric analysis J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 2011 93 817 823 10.1302/0301-620x.93b6.26122 21586783 58. Tezze C Romanello V Sandri M FGF21 as modulator of metabolism in health and disease Front. Physiol. 2019 10 419 10.3389/fphys.2019.00419 31057418 59. Mitchell SL Stott DJ Martin BJ Grant SJ Randomized controlled trial of quadriceps training after proximal femoral fracture Clin. Rehabil. 2001 15 282 290 10.1191/026921501676849095 11386398 60. Caldwell SL Bilodeau RLS Cox MJ Behm DG Cross education training effects are evident with twice daily, self-administered band stretch training J. Sports Sci. Med. 2019 18 544 551 31427877 61. Su R Effects of energy supplements on the differentiation of skeletal muscle satellite cells Food Sci. Nutr. 2021 9 357 366 10.1002/fsn3.2001 33473298 62. Bhaskar AR Khurana D Results of rodding and impact on ambulation and refracture in osteogenesis imperfecta: Study of 21 children Indian J. Orthop. 2019 53 554 559 10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_202_18 31303672 63. Huang MZ Effect of multicomponent home-based training on gait and muscle strength in older adults after hip fracture surgery: A Single site randomized trial Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2023 104 169 178 10.1016/j.apmr.2022.08.974 36087806