ArticleBone & joint open2025
Efficacy of a home-based hip exercise programme for patients with symptomatic cam femoroacetabular impingement: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Bone & joint open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aims: We aimed to determine if a home-based hip exercise programme, designed to use strength and flexibility exercises to modify pelvic positioning, is superior to usual care in reducing pain and improving function and quality of life in patients with symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Methods: This was a single-blind parallel-group randomized controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged ≥ 16 years and diagnosed with symptomatic cam FAI. A sample size of 94 was needed to detect a clinically important difference. Participants were randomly allocated to: 1) an eight-week home-based exercise programme focused on posterior pelvic tilt supervised by a physiotherapist every two weeks in addition to usual care; and 2) usual care. The primary outcome measure was function (patient-reported 33-Item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33)) and secondary outcome measures were quality of life (EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L)), and pain (visual analogue scale (VAS)) at baseline, nine weeks, and six months. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to test between-group differences in scores using a two-tailed level of significance of p < 0.05. Results: A total of 95 participants were recruited (48 intervention, 47 control), 55 were males (57.9%), the mean age was 32 years (SD 8.5), and both groups were similar at baseline. There were no statistically significant differences in the primary outcome measure between groups at nine weeks and six months for function (nine weeks: p = 0.394, 95% CI -15.5 to 6.5; six months: p = 0.526, 95% CI -8.8 to 13.7). There were no statistically significant differences in the secondary outcome measures between groups: pain (nine weeks: p = 0.153, 95% CI -0.4 to 2.4; six months: p = 0.743, 95% CI -1.1 to 1.7), and quality of life (quality of life VAS nine weeks: p = 0.877, 95% CI -10.0 to 6.0; six months: p = 0.269, 95% CI -15.0 to 5.0; index value nine weeks: p = 0.815, 95% CI -0.067 to 0.052; six months: p = 0.217, 95% CI -0.099 to 0.020). Conclusion: Our results demonstrated no statistical differences in pain, function, and quality of life for participants following an eight-week home-based exercised programme supervised by a physiotherapist compared to usual care.
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.