ReviewArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2025
Female Patient Representation Is Acceptable in Studies Regarding Hip Arthroscopy With Labral Repair Yet Deficient in Key Study Design and Sport-Specific Features.
Review 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To systematically review and examine the current literature regarding the representation of female athletes in studies examining arthroscopic hip labral repair procedures. Methods: Studies regarding arthroscopic hip labral repair were identified in PubMed. We included human studies of all levels of evidence written in English that identified the biological sex of study participants and were conducted in the United States or non-US countries that offer the same treatment strategies available in the United States. Data regarding study population, athletic caliber, menstrual status, research theme, sample of males and females, journal impact factor, and paper Altmetric score were recorded and analyzed. Results: We screened 1,152 studies and identified 62 to be included in this audit. Females made up 55% of the population of participants. Female-only and male-only studies represented 4.8% and 14.5% of studies investigated, respectively. No studies investigated outcomes of female participants at the highest athletic caliber. Menstrual status was not considered or included as a variable in any study. Participants within athletic performance, indirect association, and health research theme had 32.8%, 61.1%, and 58.6% female representation, respectively. Median impact factor was similar among study population classifications. Study Altmetric score was highest among male-only studies and studies of the highest levels of athletic caliber. Conclusions: Overall, there was a similar prevalence of female-to-male participants in hip labral repair research, with a 55% to 45% female-to-male ratio in all studies included in this review. Despite this, there is a lack of female-only studies, inclusion of menstrual status, high-level female athletes, and female participants evaluated for performance outcomes. Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.
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.