Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for adults with fractures: identification of best evidence for rehabilitation to develop the WHO’s Package of Interventions for Rehabilitation

F. Gimigliano, S. Liguori, A. Moretti, G. Toro, A. Rauch, S. Negrini, C. Curci, M. Patrini, L. Peschi, S. Pournajaf, M. Sgarbanti, G. Iolascon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Background: The identification of existing rehabilitation interventions and related evidence represents a crucial step along the development of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Package of Interventions for Rehabilitation (PIR). The methods for such identification have been developed by the WHO Rehabilitation Programme and Cochrane Rehabilitation under the guidance of the WHO’s Guideline Review Committee secretariat. The aim of this paper is to report on the results of the systematic search for clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) relevant to the rehabilitation of adults with fractures and to present the current state of evidence available from the identified CPGs. Methods: This paper is part of the Best Evidence for Rehabilitation (be4rehab) series, developed according to the methodology presented in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Package of Interventions for Rehabilitation (PIR) introductory paper. It is a systematic review of existing CPGs on fractures in adult population published from 2009 to 2019. Results: We identified 23 relevant CPGs after title and abstract screening. According to inclusion/exclusion criteria, we selected 13 CPGs. After checking for quality, publication time, multiprofessionality, and comprehensiveness, we finally included five CPGs dealing with rehabilitative management of fractures in adult population, two CPGs addressing treatment of distal radius fracture and three the treatment of femoral/hip fracture. Conclusion: The selected CPGs on management of distal radius and femoral/hip fracture include few recommendations regarding rehabilitation, with overall low to very low quality of evidence and weak/conditional strength of recommendation. Moreover, several gaps in specific rehabilitative topics occur. Further high-quality trials are required to upgrade the quality of the available evidence. Level of evidence: Level 1.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2020

Cite this