Reliability of Hip Examination Tests for Femoroacetabular Impingement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the interrater reliability of hip examination tests used to assess femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) among clinicians from different disciplines. METHODS: Twelve subjects were examined by 9 clinicians using 12 hip tests drawn from a review of the literature and consultation with experts in hip pain and FAI. Examiners assessed both hips of each subject and were blinded to subject history. The order in which subjects were seen, the order of tests, and order of examination of the 2 hips within each subject were all randomized. Interrater reliability (IRR) for the 10 categorical tests was summarized using overall raw agreement (ORA), positive agreement (agreement on abnormal findings), and negative agreement (agreement on normal findings). An ORA of >0.75 was considered to indicate adequate reliability. For the 2 range of motion (ROM) outcomes, IRR was summarized using the median of the absolute difference (MAD) in measurements obtained by any 2 examiners on any patient. MAD reflects the "typical" difference (in degrees) between 2 raters. RESULTS: Adequate reliability (ORA >0.75) was achieved for 6 of the 10 hip examination tests with categorical outcomes. Positive agreement ranged from 0.35 to 0.84, while negative agreement ranged from 0.62 to 0.99. For the ROM outcomes, examiners were, on average, within 5° of each other for flexion and 7° for internal rotation. CONCLUSION: The results provide evidence that the most common hip examination tests would likely be sufficiently reliable to allow agreement between examiners when discriminating between painful FAI and normal hips in a clinical setting.
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 | 0.027 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".