Improving function in people with hip-related pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of physiotherapist-led interventions for hip-related pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report the effectiveness of physiotherapist-led interventions in improving pain and function in young and middle-aged adults with hip-related pain. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive, reproducible search strategy was performed on five databases in May 2019. Reference lists and grey literature were also searched. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Population: people aged ≥18 years with hip-related pain (with or without a diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome). INTERVENTION(S): physiotherapist-led interventions for hip pain. Comparators: sham treatment, no treatment or other treatment (eg, hip arthroscopic surgery). OUTCOMES: primary outcomes included patient-reported hip pain and function. Secondary outcomes included physical function measures. RESULTS: 1722 papers were identified. After exclusion criteria were applied, 14 studies were included for analysis. They had varied risk of bias. There were no full-scale placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of physiotherapist-led treatment. Pooled effects ranged from moderate effects (0.67 (95% CI 0.07 to 1.26)) favouring physiotherapist-led intervention over no treatment post-arthroscopy, to weak effects (-0.32 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.07)) favouring hip arthroscopy over physiotherapist-led treatment. CONCLUSION: Physiotherapist-led interventions might improve pain and function in young and middle-aged adults with hip-related pain, however full-scale high-quality RCT studies are required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018089088.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".