Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35499620›Full record

ReviewKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2023

Diagnosing Hip Microinstability: an international consensus study using the Delphi methodology.

Vikas Khanduja, Nicholas Darby, John O'Donnell, Nicolas Bonin, Marc R Safran, International Microinstability Expert Panel

Abstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Capsular Management During Hip Arthroscopy.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Vikas KhandujaYoung Adult Hip Service, Addenbrooke's, Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK. vk279@cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9454-3978
Nicholas DarbyYoung Adult Hip Service, Addenbrooke's, Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
John O'DonnellSt Vincent's Private Hospital East Melbourne, East Melbourne, Australia.
Nicolas BoninLyon Ortho Clinic, Lyon, France.
Marc R SafranDivision of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Team Physician, Stanford University, Redwood City, CA, USA.
International Microinstability Expert Panel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeHip microinstability is a relatively new diagnosis which is increasingly being discussed in the literature and yet there are no clear guidelines for making a diagnosis. Microinstability has generally been defined as persistent excessive hip motion that has become symptomatic especially with pain. This aim of this Delphi study was to seek expert opinion to formulate a diagnostic criteria for hip microinstability.

methodsA Delphi methodology was used for this consensus study. A literature search was conducted on PubMed up to March 2019 using the keywords ((hip) and (microinstability)) to identify relevant articles on this topic. All relevant criteria used for diagnosing hip microinstability were collated to create a questionnaire and further criterion suggested by the experts were included as well. Four rounds of questionnaires were delivered via an online survey platform. Between each round the authors acted as administrating intermediaries, providing the experts with a summary of results and synthesising the next questionnaire. The expert panel was comprised of 27 members: 24 (89%) orthopaedic surgeons and 3 (11%) physiotherapists from around the world.

resultsExpert panel participation in rounds 1-4 was: 27 (100%), 20 (74%), 21 (78%) and 26 (96%) respectively. A literature review by the authors identified 32 diagnostic criteria to populate the first questionnaire. Experts suggested amending three criteria and creating five new criteria. The panel converged on ranking 3 (8%) of criteria as "Not important", 20 (54%) as "Minor Factors" and 14 (38%) as "Major Factors". No criteria was ranked as "Essential". Criteria were subcategorised into patient history, examination and imaging. Experts voted for a minimum requirement of four criteria in each subcategory, including at least six "Major factors". The final diagnostic tool was approved by 20 (77%) of the final round panel.

conclusionThis study describes the first known expert consensus on diagnosing hip microinstability. The relative complexity of the final diagnostic tool is illustrative of the difficulty clinicians' face when making this diagnosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.

Indexed as

PainConsensusDelphi TechniqueHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesConsensusDelphiDysplasiaHip painMicroinstability

Identifiers

PMID35499620
PMCPMC9859907

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.