Low rate of adverse events in a randomized controlled trial addressing the surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The femoroacetabular impingement randomised controlled trial (FIRST) is a multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT), comparing arthroscopic osteochondroplasty with arthroscopic lavage in adults aged 18-50 years diagnosed with non-arthritic femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome. The purpose of the present study is to report the prevalence, distribution and severity of adverse events during and within 24-month follow-up period. METHODS: Of the 220 patients included, 6 were adjudicated as ineligible, for a total of 214 patients included in the final analysis. An independent Adjudication Committee evaluated operatively treated and non-operatively treated adverse events that were related to the hip. Adverse events were also reported directly by each participating clinical site. Continuous variables were reported as mean and standard deviation, categorical variables were reported as counts and percentages. RESULTS: There were a total of 52 (24.2%, 52/214) adverse events in 46 (21.5%) patients (mean age 34.2 ± 7.9 years, 58.7% male) during the 24-month follow-up. There were 12.6% (27/214) operatively treated adverse events for: hip pain, re-injury of labrum and heterotopic ossification. There were 11.7% (25/214) non-operatively treated adverse events for predominantly: hip pain, hip tendinopathy and hip popping/snapping. Approximately, 87% of adverse events resolved within the 24-month follow-up time. CONCLUSION: Given the inherent challenges with conducting RCTs, the results of this adverse event study from the FIRST trial demonstrate that it is safe to perform an RCT addressing FAI syndrome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
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 | 0.034 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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".