Abductor muscle strength deficit in patients after total hip arthroplasty for hip osteoarthritis: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Conservation of abductor muscle strength is directly associated with physical function after total hip replacement (THA). Although many studies have tried to explore and quantify a potential abductor muscle strength deficit after THA as well as identify possible causes and treatment options, this topic has not been addressed systematically. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Human-based studies reporting measurements of hip abductor strength will be included in this review. Studies reporting on hip abductor strength measured manually or isometric measurements at an abduction angle other than 0° will not be considered. No restriction will be placed on study design, publication date operative approach, prosthesis design, age and sex of the patients or severity of OA. Data sources will be Embase via embase.com, Medline ALL via Ovid and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The preliminary search was conducted on 5 May 2019. Data regarding absolute values or torque ratio of hip abductor torque between sides as well as patient demographic data, surgical approaches and rehabilitation protocols will be extracted. The assessment of quality and risk of bias will be performed with the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The screening, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed by two reviewers independently. Where necessary, a third review author will make a final judgement. Narrative synthesis as well as tabular presentation of the extracted data will be included. Whenever possible, metaregression and subgroup specific meta-analyses will be used to investigate the influence of time since THA and type of measurement (isokinetic or isometric) on the different outcomes. In case of sufficient information, these analyses will be extended to include characteristics such as age, sex, surgical approach or rehabilitation programme. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020153185.
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 | 0.058 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.005 |
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".