Indications for hip arthroscopy in pediatric patients a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current available literature on hip arthroscopy and determine the clinical indications in the pediatric patient population (age ≤ 18). In accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), a comprehensive literature search was performed on the 23 October 2018 using PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and e-books to identify research surrounding the use of hip arthroscopy in the pediatrics. Exclusion criteria were studies that described joints other than the hip, animal studies, systematic reviews, open procedures and those that reported solely on patients aged 19-year-old and older. From 232 studies, 57 were reviewed in detail; 17 articles were removed as their indication fell into a category of 'diagnostic hip arthroscopy for pain' or no clear separation between the data on the adult and pediatric population could be made in a full text review of the paper. Eleven categories were identified as indications for hip arthroscopy in the pediatric population. At best a Grade C recommendation can be made to support the use of hip arthroscopy in the pediatric population. Our results support our hypothesis. Despite the exponential increase in hip arthroscopy over the last decade, limited evidence exists in support of its use in the pediatric (≤18) population. Our findings support the need for further research in delineating the indications for its use, as clearly arthroscopy may be advantageous in many situations, particularly in light of the alternatives.
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 | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".