ArticleCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2016
Sources and quality of literature addressing femoroacetabular impingement: a scoping review 2011-2015.
Article in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current Relative Value Scale Methodology Underestimates Perioperative Workload in Hip Arthroscopy.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- A comprehensive review of hip arthroscopy techniques and outcomes.SAGE open medicine · 2024Review
- Return to Play After Femoroacetabular Impingement.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2023Review
- The growth of hip preservation as a speciality.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Article
- Rapid decline of yearly number of hip arthroscopies in Sweden: a retrospective time series of 6,105 hip arthroscopies based on a national patient data register.Acta orthopaedica · 2021Article
- Evaluation of outcome reporting trends for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome- a systematic review.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2021Review
- Historical analysis of the diagnosis and management of femoroacetabular impingement prior to the year 2000: a systematic review.Journal of hip preservation surgery · 2020Review
- Loss to follow-up: initial non-responders do not differ from responders in terms of 2-year outcome in a hip arthroscopy registry.Journal of hip preservation surgery · 2020Article
- Quality Assessment of Prospective Cohort Studies Evaluating Arthroscopic Treatment for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: A Systematic Review.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2019Review
- A Systematic Summary of Systematic Reviews on the Topic of Hip Arthroscopic Surgery.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A systematic review was performed to explore the current trends over the last 5 years in femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) literature and compare the quality and sources of publications in the literature to that published previously. We identified 1066 relevant studies including 186,572 patients. The number of publications increased during the reviewed time period with the most dramatic increase from 2011 to 2013. Seventy-three percent (N = 786) of all studies were of levels 4 and 5 quality evidence. The percent of publications which were levels 1, 2 and 3 increased by almost twofold from 16.1 % (N = 26) to 28.7 % (N = 51) between 2011 and 2015. In comparison to previous work, there has been 3.5-fold increase in the number of publications over the past 5 years with a shift towards improving the level of evidence available guiding the arthroscopic management of FAI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV-Systematic Review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.