Evaluation of outcome reporting trends for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome‐ a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the trends in the literature regarding surgical treatment for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and to present which patient-reported outcome-measures (PROMs) and surgical approaches are included. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted with the PRISMA guidelines. The literature search was performed on PubMed and Embase, covering studies from 1999 to 2020. Inclusion criteria were clinical studies with surgical treatment for FAIS, the use of PROMs as evaluation tool and studies in English. Exclusion criteria were studies with patients < 18 years, cohorts with < 8 patients, studies with primarily purpose to evaluate other diagnoses than FAIS and studies with radiographs as only outcomes without using PROMs. Data extracted were author, year, surgical intervention, type of study, level of evidence, demographics of included patients, and PROMs. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 2,559 studies, of which 196 were included. There was an increase of 2,043% in the number of studies from the first to the last five years (2004-2008)-(2016-2020). There were 135 (69%) retrospective, 55 (28%) prospective and 6 (3%) Randomized Controlled Trials. Level of evidence ranged from I-IV where Level III was most common (44%). More than half of the studies (58%) originated from USA. Arthroscopic surgery was the most common surgical treatment (85%). Mean follow-up was 27.0 months (± 17 SD), (range 1.5-120 months). Between 1-10 PROMs were included, and the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) was most commonly used (61%). CONCLUSION: There has been a continuous increase in the number of published studies regarding FAIS with the majority evaluating arthroscopic surgery. The mHHS remains being the most commonly used PROM.
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 | 0.052 | 0.205 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".