SynthesisKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2025
Lack of validated patient-reported outcome tools persists in paediatric and adolescent hip arthroscopy-A systematic review.
Synthesis in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Lack of validated patient-reported outcome tools persists in paediatric and adolescent hip arthroscopy-A systematic review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis 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.
methodsTwo 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.
resultsFifty-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.
conclusionsThe 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.
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.