Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36588401›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of sports medicine2022

Oxford consensus on primary cam morphology and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: part 1-definitions, terminology, taxonomy and imaging outcomes.

H Paul Dijkstra, Sean Mc Auliffe, Clare L Ardern, Joanne L Kemp, Andrea Britt Mosler, Amy Price, Paul Blazey, Dawn Richards, Abdulaziz Farooq, Andreas Serner and 9 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of sports medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

19 authors at 12 institutions in 9 countries.

H Paul DijkstraDepartment of Medical Education, Aspetar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Doha, Qatar Paul.Dijkstra@aspetar.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3166-1357
Sean Mc AuliffeDepartment of Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation Science, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8716-5005
Clare L ArdernDepartment of Family Practice, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8102-3631
Joanne L KempLa Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre; Australian IOC Research Centre, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9234-1923
Andrea Britt MoslerLa Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre; Australian IOC Research Centre, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7353-2583
Amy PriceDepartment of Anesthesia, Informatics and Media Lab, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Paul BlazeyCenter for Hip Health and Mobility, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8149-9514
Dawn RichardsFive02 Labs Inc, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abdulaziz FarooqFIFA Medical Centre of Excellence, Aspetar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Doha, Qatar.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9162-4948
Andreas SernerFIFA Medical, Federation Internationale de Football Association, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4308-901X
Eugene McNallyOxford Musculoskeletal Radiology, Oxford, UK.
Vasco MascarenhasAdvanced Imaging Research Consortium UIME, Hospital da Luz, Lisboa, Portugal.
Richard W WillyPhysical Therapy and Movement Science, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA.
Jason L OkeNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3467-6677
Karim M KhanFamily Practice & Kinesiology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9976-0258
Sion Glyn-JonesNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8521-7342
Mike ClarkeNorthern Ireland Methodology Hub, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2926-7257
Trisha GreenhalghNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2369-8088
Young Athlete’s Hip Research (YAHiR) Collaborative
University of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Oxford · GBFédération Internationale de Football Association · CHLa Trobe University · AUFaculty of Media · SIGlycemic Index Laboratories · CAHospital da Luz · PTNIHR Oxford Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Centre · GBNuffield Orthopaedic Centre · GBQueen's University Belfast · GBTrinity College Dublin · IEUniversity of Montana · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPrimary cam morphology is a mostly benign bony prominence that develops at the femoral head-neck junction of the hip, but it is highly prevalent in many athlete populations. In the small proportion of athletes for whom it is not benign, the resulting hip osteoarthritis can be debilitating. Clinicians, athletes, patients and researchers do not yet agree on important primary cam morphology elements. We aimed to ascertain and improve the level of agreement on primary cam morphology definitions, terminology, taxonomy and imaging outcome measures.

methodsTo collect and aggregate informed opinions, an expert panel-the Young Athlete's Hip Research Collaborative-rated primary cam morphology definition, terminology, taxonomy and imaging outcome statements through an online Delphi exercise followed by an online meeting to explore areas of tension and dissent. Reporting followed Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies.

resultsA diverse and inclusive Delphi panel (n=65 for rounds 1 and 2, representing 18 countries; 6 stakeholder groups; 40% women) agreed on 35 of 47 statements in 4 domains, while surfacing areas of tension and dissent. This Delphi panel agreed on four key issues essential to moving research and clinical care forward around primary cam morphology. They agreed on: (1) definition, confirming its conceptual attributes (tissue type, size, location, shape and ownership); (2) terminology-use 'morphology' and not terms with a negative connotation like 'lesion', 'abnormality' or 'deformity'; (3) taxonomy, distinguishing between primary and secondary cam morphology, and (4) imaging outcomes, a continuous bone/cartilage alpha angle on radial femoral head-neck MRI for primary cam morphology aetiology research.

conclusionThis consensus provides athletes, patients, clinicians and researchers with a strong foundation to guide more precise communication, better clinical decision-making and higher value research about primary cam morphology and its natural history.

Indexed as

AthletesConsensusHipOsteoarthritisSports medicine

Identifiers

PMID36588401
PMCPMC9985727
OpenAlexW4311704734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.