Effects of Multi-modal Physiotherapy, Including Hip Abductor Strengthening, in Patients with Iliotibial Band Friction Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to quantitatively examine hip abductor strength in patients presenting with iliotibial band friction syndrome (ITBFS) and to determine whether a multi-modal physiotherapy approach, including hip abductor strengthening, might play a role in recovery. METHOD: Our observational, pretest-posttest study is one of the first prospective studies in this area. Patients presenting to physiotherapy with unilateral ITBFS were recruited to participate. Participants followed a 6-week rehabilitation programme designed to strengthen hip abductors; strength was measured every 2 weeks using a hand-held dynamometer and compared bilaterally. RESULTS: Sixteen subjects (five men, 11 women) aged 20 to 53 years participated. All but 2 reported running as one of their main physical activities. A trend toward a significant difference in hip abductor strength was found between the injured and uninjured sides at baseline, but this difference disappeared by 6 weeks. Hip abductor strength was significantly related to physical function at weeks 2, 4, and 6. Nine subjects were discharged from physiotherapy after the 6-week period, while the other 7 subjects continued attending for up to 5 months. CONCLUSIONS: Hip abductor strengthening appeared to be beneficial in the treatment of ITBFS, but further research on the use of hip abductor strengthening for treatment and prevention of ITBFS is needed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".