Lack of validated patient‐reported outcome tools persists in paediatric and adolescent hip arthroscopy—A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This systematic review aimed to (1) identify commonly used patient-reported outcome (PRO) tools in paediatric hip arthroscopy and (2) assess whether the PROs used in this population have been formally validated. METHODS: Two systematic searches of MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL, from inception to 31 March 2024 and 22 August 2024, respectively, followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The first search identified PRO instruments used in studies on hip arthroscopy in patients aged 19 and under. The second focused on the clinimetric properties of these tools in paediatric hip arthroscopy. PRO utilization was stratified by pathology, trends over time and publication type. Use of the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments tool, and a descriptive analysis, were planned to assess the eligible clinimetric studies. RESULTS: Fifty-seven studies were included, identifying 10 hip-specific and 5 nonspecific PROs. The second search did not identify any clinimetric studies on these tools used in paediatric patients. The most commonly reported hip-specific PRO were the modified Hip Harris Score (n = 48), the Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale (n = 25) and the Non-Arthritic Hip Score (n = 20). Hip arthroscopy was used to treat over seven different conditions, with femoroacetabular impingement being the most common (n = 41, 77%). Between 2005 and 2024, the variety of hip-specific PROs increased, with seven new ones introduced by 2019-2024. Additionally, this study found a relatively equal distribution of outcomes across presentation abstracts and manuscripts. CONCLUSIONS: The key finding of this study is the ongoing lack of hip-specific PRO tools in the paediatric hip arthroscopy literature, with reliance on adult-derived instruments. The absence of clinimetric studies and heterogeneity in PRO use emphasises the need for standardized, paediatric-specific tools. Developing and validating such instruments should be prioritized to ensure accurate, age-appropriate outcome assessment and care. 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 | 0.033 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".