What Clinimetric Evidence Exists for Using Hip-specific Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Pediatric Hip Impingement?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an increasingly popular research tool used to evaluate the outcomes of surgical intervention. If applied appropriately, they can be useful both for disease monitoring and as a method of assessing the efficacy of treatment. Many disorders can lead to impingement in children and adolescents, but it is not clear if any PROs have been validated to evaluate outcomes in these populations. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We performed a systematic review of the literature to answer the following research questions: (1) Which hip-specific PROs are used in pediatric populations with impingement? (2) What clinimetric evidence exists for the use of these specific PROs in this population? METHODS: We performed two systematic searches of three databases (Medline, EMBASE, and Ovid All EBM Reviews). The first search aimed to identify specific PROs that have been applied to pediatric impingement populations. The second search aimed to find clinimetric evaluations of the PROs from the first search in this population. RESULTS: We found six hip-specific PROs applied in pediatric impingement: Harris Hip Score, modified Harris Hip Score, Iowa Hip Score, Merle d'Aubigné Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score, and Non-arthritic Hip Score. However, we found no papers validating any of these PROs in this population. Furthermore, we found no papers validating any of these PROs in any pediatric population. CONCLUSIONS: A number of adult PROs have been applied in pediatric impingement disorders without evidence of validation in any pediatric population. Further work to develop and validate a hip-specific pediatric PRO is required.
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 | 0.133 | 0.427 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".