MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402929693 · doi:10.1080/00913847.2024.2410148

Return-to-sports criteria used by professional team physicians in elite athletes after hip arthroscopy – a qualitative study

2024· article· en· W4402929693 on OpenAlexaff
Mario Pasurka, Mike Szlufcik, John Theodoropoulos, Marcel Betsch

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Physician and Sportsmedicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHip arthroscopyAthletesElite athletesPhysical therapyEliteReturn to sportArthroscopySports medicineMedicinePsychologySurgeryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to explore currently utilized readiness to Return to Sport (RTS) criteria after Hip Arthroscopy (HA) used in elite athletes to gain novel insights into the RTS decision-making process of professional team physicians. The authors hypothesized that even among this group of highly specialized physicians, there exists variability of measures and criteria used to determine RTS after HA. METHODS: A total of 15 qualitative semi-structured interviews with professional team physicians were conducted by a single trained interviewer. The interviews were used to identify team physician concepts and themes regarding the criteria used to determine RTS after HA. Themes and sub-themes were identified using a general inductive analysis and a coding process. A hierarchical approach in coding helped to link themes. RESULTS: Four key themes and several subordinate themes were identified from the interviews that seem to influence the return to sports decision. The most important RTS criteria were muscle strength (especially symmetric hip strength and muscle bulk with low side-to-side variance compared to the contralateral side) followed by pain-free sport-specific activity (pain-free drill skills and play at a lower level), physical examination (with major emphasis on the absence of hip pain with a painless hip range of motion compared to the contralateral side), and functional testing (including full squats, Ober test, FABER test, and pain-free FADIR position). CONCLUSION: Besides objective findings, including muscle strength, we identified time after surgery as well as subjective findings, including absence of pain and feedback of clinical team members that influence RTS decision after HA. We showed that even among specialized professional team physicians, the main criteria to RTS in these categories were not consistent necessitating the further development of specific RTS guidelines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Physician and SportsmedicineSame topicHip disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207