ArticleJournal of hip preservation surgery2025
Normal range of femoral version for different measurement methods on CT or MRI-scoping review of normal femoral version.
Article in Journal of hip preservation surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The lesser trochanter index: detection of increased femoral version in patients with symptomatic hip disease.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Reliability of fast T1 VIBE Dixon MRI for femoral version measurement in FAI patients: A comparative study with CT.European journal of radiology open · 2026Article
- Indications and techniques of proximal femoral osteotomies in 2026.EFORT open reviews · 2026Review
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
Correct quantification of femoral version (FV) is crucial for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) patients for diagnosis and for surgical planning. However, different measurement methods for FV and different normal values are confusing. The study aimed to investigate differences in FV measurement methods and to review normal FV. This retrospective comparative study investigated a total of 84 hips for FV measurement: 48 hips (asymptomatic patients) and 36 hips (asymptomatic volunteers) without hip pain. The 48 patients underwent computed tomography (CT) for another reason (mean age 63 ± 11 years) and most (39 hips, 81%) were male patients. The 36 hips reported no hip pain at the time of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (mean age 27 ± 7 years, 20 female patients, 56%). FV was measured on CT or MRI included pelvis and knee) and with the Murphy method. Mean FV for 48 hips was 22° (range 5-34°), and for 36 hips, it was 24° (7-44°). No significant differences were found between the two groups. For 39 male patients with CT scans, the mean FV was 21° (6-34°) and was significantly (
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.