The Effect of Weak Hip Abductors or External Rotators on Knee Valgus Kinematics in Healthy Subjects: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: It has been postulated that subjects with weak hip abductors and external rotators may demonstrate increased knee valgus, which may in turn raise risk of injury to the lower extremity. Recent studies have explored the potential link between hip strength and knee kinematics, but there has not yet been a review of this literature. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review assessing the potential link between hip-abductor or external-rotator strength and knee-valgus kinematics during dynamic activities in asymptomatic subjects. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: An online computer search was conducted in early February 2011. Databases included Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria were English language, asymptomatic subjects, dynamometric hip-strength assessment, single or multicamera kinematic analysis, and statistical analysis of the link between hip strength and knee valgus via correlations or tests of differences. Data were extracted concerning subject characteristics, study design, strength measures, kinematic measures, subject tasks, and findings with regard to correlations or group differences. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eleven studies were selected for review, 4 of which found evidence that subjects with weak hip abductors or external rotators demonstrated increased knee valgus, and 1 study found a correlation to the contrary. CONCLUSIONS: There is a small amount of evidence that healthy subjects with weak hip abductors and perhaps weak external rotators demonstrate increased knee valgus. However, due to the variation in methodology and lack of agreement between studies, it is not possible to make any definitive conclusions or clinical recommendations based on the results of this review. Further research 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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".