ArticlePloS one2026
Development and internal validation of a field-based triage tool for lumbopelvic-hip dysfunction in collegiate athletes.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Because lumbopelvic-hip (LPH) dysfunction in athletes is commonly associated with subsequent low back pain (LBP), this cross-sectional derivation and internal validation study aimed to develop and internally validate a clinical triage scoring system (CTSS) for field-based identification of collegiate athletes requiring priority intervention-namely, those who, in the judgment of experts, are likely to warrant further assessment and management. A total of 864 collegiate athletes (mean age 21.3 ± 2.4 years; 80.8% male) were recruited from 10 universities. Participants underwent standardized assessments including demographic characteristics, clinical history, and LPH functional testing. Using an expert-adjudicated binary reference standard (priority intervention vs self-management), a multivariable logistic regression model was developed to derive the weighted CTSS. Model performance was evaluated using discrimination, calibration, and decision curve analysis (DCA), and internal validation was performed using 1,000 bootstrap resamples. Of the 864 participants, 463 athletes (53.6%) were classified as requiring priority clinical assessment. The final 14-factor CTSS comprised 12 positive-weight predictors, such as localized LPH pain, muscle weakness, and higher body mass index, and 2 negative-weight predictors, positive Lasegue's sign and hamstring weakness, which functioned as safety-related modifiers. The model demonstrated acceptable discrimination (AUROC = 0.851, 95% CI: 0.824-0.876), with minimal optimism (optimism-corrected AUROC = 0.842) and excellent calibration (calibration slope = 0.996; calibration intercept = 0.0003). A total score of ≥9 was identified as the optimal threshold, yielding a sensitivity of 84.4% and specificity of 71.8%. DCA showed greater net benefit than treat-all and treat-none strategies across clinically relevant threshold probabilities (20%-50%), with a net benefit of 0.319 at a 50% threshold probability. The CTSS may provide a pragmatic field-based triage tool to support early identification of athletes who may benefit from priority intervention, although external validation is needed before broader implementation in sports medicine settings.
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.