Individuals With Patellofemoral Pain Have Less Hip Flexibility Than Controls Regardless of Treatment Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in hip flexibility before and after a 6-week muscle strengthening program between those with patellofemoral pain (PFP) and healthy controls. DESIGN: Single-blind, multicentered, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Four clinical research laboratories. SUBJECTS: Physically active individuals (199 PFP and 38 controls). INTERVENTIONS: Patellofemoral pain and control subjects were randomized into either a hip-focused or a knee-focused muscle strengthening treatment program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain-visual analog scale (centimeter), function-Anterior Knee Pain Scale (points), flexibility-passive goniometry (degrees): hip adduction (HADD), hip external rotation (HER), hip internal rotation (HIR), total hip rotation (HROT), hip extension (HEXT) were measured before and after the muscle strengthening treatment program. RESULTS: Subjects with patellofemoral pain who successfully completed the treatment program (n = 153) had 65%, 25%, 18%, and 12% less HADD, HER, HROT, and HIR ranges of motion (ROMs), respectively, than controls (P < 0.05). Patellofemoral pain subjects who did not successfully complete the program (n = 41) had 134%, 31%, 22%, and 13% less HADD, HER, HROT, and HIR ROMs, respectively, than controls (P < 0.05). All subjects increased their HIR, HROT, and HEXT ROMs pretest to posttest (P < 0.05), but by less than 2 degree. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with PFP had less hip flexibility than controls regardless of treatment outcome or time. After the 6-week muscle strengthening program, and regardless of treatment success, PFP and control subjects experienced a small but clinically insignificant improvement in hip flexibility. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Hip ROM should be considered as a targeted area of focus in a rehabilitation program for physically active individuals with PFP.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".