MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013059535 · doi:10.1093/jhps/hnaa013

Bilateral versus unilateral hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review

2020· review· en· W3013059535 on OpenAlex
Claire E. Fernandez, Allison M. Morgan, Ujash Sheth, Vehniah K. Tjong, Michael A. Terry

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hip Preservation Surgery · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFemoroacetabular impingementHip arthroscopyMedicineChecklistPhysical therapyEvidence-based medicineVisual analogue scaleMeta-analysisCohort studyArthroscopyProspective cohort studySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One in four patients presenting with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) has bilateral symptoms, and despite excellent outcomes reported after arthroscopic treatment of FAI, there remains a paucity of data on the outcomes following bilateral hip arthroscopy. This systematic review aims to examine the outcomes following bilateral (either 'simultaneous' or 'staged') versus unilateral hip arthroscopy for FAI. A systematic review of multiple electronic databases was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and checklist. All studies comparing simultaneous, staged and/or unilateral hip arthroscopy for FAI were eligible for inclusion. Case series, case reports and reviews were excluded. All study, patient and hip-specific data were extracted and analyzed. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. A meta-analysis was not performed due to heterogeneity among outcome measures. A total of six studies, including 722 patients (42.8% male) and 933 hips were eligible for inclusion. The mean age across patients was 35.5. The average time between staged procedures was 7.7 months. Four of the six studies were retrospective cohort studies, while the remaining two were prospective in nature. The overall quality of the eligible studies was found to be good. No significant difference was noted among patient-reported outcomes (modified Harris hip score, hip outcome score and non-arthritic hip score), visual analog scale, return to sport, traction time and complications between those undergoing bilateral (simultaneous or staged) versus unilateral hip arthroscopy. Based on the current available evidence, bilateral hip arthroscopy (whether simultaneous or staged) exhibits similar efficacy and safety when compared with unilateral hip arthroscopy. However, further prospective study is required to confirm this finding.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.152
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it