ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2025
Procedure Type and Preoperative Patient-Reported Outcome Metrics Predict Variation in the Value of Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement.
Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- MCID normalization: A methodological framework for harmonizing heterogeneous PROMs in hip arthroscopy research.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
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
Purpose: To characterize variation in the value of hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement and explore associations between value and patient-specific demographic characteristics, comorbidities, preoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and intraoperative variables. Methods: We included all patients aged 18 years or older who underwent primary arthroscopic acetabular labral repair or debridement between 2015 and 2020 with minimum 2-year follow-up. The exclusion criteria were hip dysplasia, advanced hip osteoarthritis (TÖnnis grade >1), or unreconcilable documenting errors. Value was calculated by dividing 2-year postoperative International Hip Outcome Tool 33 scores by time-driven activity-based costs. To protect the confidentiality of internal hospital cost data, the study average for value was normalized to 100. Multivariable linear mixed-effects models were used to identify factors underlying variation in value. Results: This study included 161 patients. There were 76 women (47.2%) and 85 men, with a mean age of 36.0 years (standard deviation [SD], 10.9 years) and mean body mass index (BMI) of 25.8 (SD, 4.3). Most patients were white (92.5%), were not Hispanic (93.8%), and were commercially insured (92.5%). Preoperatively, 57.1% of hips were classified as Tönnis grade 1 (57.1%) whereas the remainder were grade 0. The normalized value of hip arthroscopy ranged from 25.4 to 216.4 (mean ± SD, 100 ± 38.4), with a 3.0-fold variation between patients in the 10th and 90th percentiles. Higher value was significantly associated with Tönnis grade 0 (12.2-point increase, Conclusions: This study revealed wide variation in the value of hip arthroscopy that was most strongly explained by osteoplasty type, labral management technique, and preoperative PROMs. In contrast, patient demographic characteristics such as age, sex, and BMI contributed minimal independent variability. Level of Evidence: Level IV, economic and decision analysis.
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.