Return to Sport After Surgical Management of Proximal Hamstring Avulsions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the rates and timing of return to sport for the surgical management of proximal hamstring avulsions (PHAs). METHODS: Three databases, PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, were searched from database inception until October 7, 2017, by 2 reviewers independently and in duplicate. The inclusion criteria were studies reporting return to sport outcomes for surgical management of acute, chronic, complete, and partial PHA. The rate of return to sports was combined in a meta-analysis of proportions using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Overall, 21 studies with a total of 846 patients met the inclusion criteria, with a mean age of 41.4 years (range, 14-71 years) and a mean follow-up of 37.8 months (range, 6-76 months). Two studies were of prospective comparative design (level II), 2 were retrospective comparative (level III), 8 were prospective case series (level IV), and 9 were retrospective case series (level IV). The overall mean time to return to sport was 5.8 months (range, 1-36 months). The pooled rate of return to any sport participation was 87% [95% confidence interval (CI), 77%-95%]. The pooled rate of return to preinjury level of sport was 77% (95% CI, 66%-86%). CONCLUSIONS: Pooled results suggest a high rate of return to sport after surgical management of PHA; however, this was associated with a lower preinjury level of sport. No major differences in return to sport were found between partial versus complete and acute versus chronic PHA.
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 | 0.014 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".