Trochanteric pain in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty: A protocol for a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most common surgical procedures. Although THA surgeries are typically very successful, between 3% and 17% of all patients experience trochanteric pain after surgery. Unfortunately, there remains little high quality and reproducible evidence surrounding this disorder, especially following total hip replacement. The objectives of this review are to describe, among pre-operative or post-operative primary THA patients the prevalence, treatments, prognosis, risk factors, and diagnostic methods available for trochanteric pain. Methods: This is a protocol for a descriptive systematic review of trochanteric pain among THA patients. We will include studies of all study designs, with the exception of non-systematic reviews and expert opinion, with no date limits. We will search Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library using the Ovid search interface. We will also search the reference lists of included studies for possible missed studies. We will use the systematic review management software Rayyan to assist with study screening. Two reviewers will independently review studies for inclusion and extract data into a study-specific database. Discussion: This study will add to the literature by comprehensively and systematically evaluating the available literature on trochanteric pain after THA. Previous studies have been conducted on the topic but they were not comprehensive or did not review the literature systematically. Additionally, our study will critically evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies, adding an evidence-based component to the review. This review will help orthopaedic surgeons better care for patients with trochanteric pain after THA, and will identify knowledge gaps for future research. Registration: This protocol will be registered on PROSPERO
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 | 0.097 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.006 |
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".