Posterior, Lateral, and Anterior Hip Pain Due to Musculoskeletal Origin: A Narrative Literature Review of History, Physical Examination, and Diagnostic Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to present a narrative review of the literature of musculoskeletal causes of adult hip pain, with special attention to history, physical examination, and diagnostic imaging. METHODS: A narrative review of the English medical literature was performed by using the search terms "hip pain" AND "anterior," "lateral," and "posterior." Additionally, specific entities of hip pain or pain referral sources to the hip were searched for. We used the PubMed search engine through January 15, 2016. RESULTS: Musculoskeletal sources of adult hip pain can be divided into posterior, lateral, and anterior categories. For posterior hip pain, select considerations include lumbar spine and femoroacetabular joint referral, sacroiliac joint pathology, piriformis syndrome, and proximal hamstring tendinopathy. Gluteal tendinopathy and iliotibial band thickening are the most common causes of lateral hip pain. Anterior hip pain is further divided into causes that are intra-articular (ie, labral tear, osteoarthritis, osteonecrosis) and extra-articular (ie, snapping hip and inguinal disruption [athletic pubalgia]). Entrapment neuropathies and myofascial pain should also be considered in each compartment. A limited number of historical features and physical examination tests for evaluation of adult hip pain are supported by the literature and are discussed in this article. Depending on the clinical differential, the gamut of diagnostic imaging modalities recommended for accurate diagnosis include plain film radiography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, skeletal scintigraphy, and ultrasonography. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of adult hip pain is challenging. Clinicians should consider posterior, lateral, and anterior sources of pain while keeping in mind that these may overlap.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".