Evidence-Based Analysis of the Efficacy for Operative Treatment of Hallux Rigidus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this article is to provide an evidence-based literature review and assessment of the quality of literature regarding operative interventions for hallux rigidus. METHODS: A comprehensive evidence-based literature review of the PubMed database was conducted on June 24, 2011, identifying 586 articles, of which 135 were relevant in assessing the efficacy of common operative interventions for hallux rigidus. The 135 studies were then assigned a level of evidence (I-V) to denote quality. They were then reviewed to provide a grade of recommendation (A-C, I) in support of or against the operative intervention in treatment of hallux rigidus. RESULTS: Based on the results of this evidence-based review, there is fair evidence (grade B) in support of arthrodesis for treatment of hallux rigidus. There is poor evidence (grade C) in support of cheilectomy, osteotomy, implant arthroplasty, resection arthroplasty, and interpositional arthroplasty for treatment of hallux rigidus. There is insufficient evidence (grade I) for cheilectomy with osteotomy for treatment of hallux rigidus. CONCLUSION: There are no consistent findings in comparative studies that are properly powered with validated and appropriate outcome measures to allow any definitive conclusions on which procedure is best. However, the grade B recommendation assigned to arthrodesis may make it the logical leading candidate for future high-quality randomized controlled trials. Clearly, further studies-ideally, high-quality Level I randomized controlled trials with validated outcome measures-are needed to allow stronger recommendations to be made. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.043 | 0.203 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".