Is Isolated Hip Strengthening or Traditional Knee-Based Strengthening More Effective in Patients With Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome? A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Focus on the importance of hip muscle strength in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) has recently increased. It is unknown whether patients with PFPS will benefit more from hip strengthening compared with traditional knee-based strengthening. Purpose: To compare the efficiency of isolated hip strengthening versus traditional knee-based strengthening for patients with PFPS. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: We conducted a search for studies comparing isolated hip strengthening and knee-based strengthening by using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library electronic databases. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the PEDro scale. Predetermined variables from each study were extracted and analyzed. Results: A total of 5 comparative studies were included in this review; all studies were of moderate to high quality and reflected good internal and external validity. Pain (visual analog scale [VAS]) and function (Anterior Knee Pain Scale) scores improved in both the hip and knee groups after strengthening intervention, although no statistically significant differences were seen between groups in the pooled analysis. In 2 studies, VAS pain scores were reduced earlier for patients in the hip group than for those in the knee group ( P < .05). In 1 study, improvement in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function scores in the hip group was statistically superior compared with those in the knee group after intervention and at 6-month follow-up ( P < .05). In 2 studies, patients in the hip group exhibited statistically greater hip abductor and extensor strength than did those in the knee group after intervention ( P < .05). Conclusion: The best-available evidence suggests that overall, isolated hip strengthening and knee strengthening were equivalent for treatment of PFPS.
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 | 0.017 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.029 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".