ArticlePhysical therapy2020
Physical Therapists and Physicians Evaluate Nonarthritic Hip Disease Differently: Results From a National Survey.
Article in Physical therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical assessment and treatment of patients presenting with longstanding hip and groin pain in primary care: a survey study among physical therapists and general practitioners in Sweden.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Associations Between Movement Impairments and Function, Treatment Recommendations, and Treatment Plans for People With Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome.Physical therapy · 2021Article
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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPhysical therapy and surgery are viable treatment options for nonarthritic hip disease (NAHD). Interdisciplinary collaboration can help patients make informed treatment decisions. Understanding how each provider can contribute is a critical first step in developing collaborative evaluation efforts.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to describe the current evaluation of NAHD by both physical therapists and physicians, and evaluate national use of expert-recommended evaluation guidelines.
designA national survey study distributed in the United States was implemented to accomplish the objective.
methodsA survey was distributed to 25,027 potential physical therapist and physician respondents. Respondents detailed their evaluation content for patients with NAHD across the following domains: patient-reported outcomes, patient history, special tests, movement assessment, clinical tests, and imaging. Respondents ranked importance of each domain using a 5-point Likert scale (not important, slightly important, important, very important, or extremely important). Odds ratios (ORs [95% CIs]) were calculated to identify the odds that physical therapists, compared with physicians, would report each evaluation domain as at least very important. Fisher exact tests were performed to identify statistically significant ORs.
resultsNine hundred and fourteen participants (3.6%) completed the survey. Physical therapists were more likely to indicate movement assessment (OR: 4.23 [2.99-6.02]) and patient-reported outcomes (OR: 2.56 [1.67-3.99]) as at least very important for determining a diagnosis and plan of care. Physical therapists had lower odds of rating imaging (OR: 0.09 [0.06-0.14]) and special tests (OR: 0.72 [0.53-0.98]) as at least very important compared with physicians. LIMITATIONS: This survey study did not include many orthopedic surgeons and thus, primarily represents evaluation practices of physical therapists and nonsurgical physicians.
conclusionsPhysical therapists were more likely to consider movement assessment very important for the evaluation of patients with NAHD, whereas physicians were more likely to consider imaging and special testing very important.
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.