ReviewArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2026
Sex Does Not Impact Outcomes of Arthroscopic Treatment of Hip Labral Tears: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate sex-specific outcomes after arthroscopic treatments for hip labral tears. Methods: A review of literature was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies-Intervention tool was used for the risk-of-bias assessment. Eligible studies included patients who underwent arthroscopic hip labral repair or reconstruction, reported sex-based outcomes, and were published between 2005 and 2024. Exclusion criteria included studies not written in English, cadaveric and animal studies, and studies that failed to stratify outcomes based on sex. The outcomes of interest were modified Harris Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sport Scale score, Visual Analog Scale for Pain score, revision rates, and return-to-sport (RTS) rates. Results: There were no statically significant differences in Hip Outcome Score-Sport Scale, modified Harris Hip Score, revision rates, and RTS rates. Men and women had similar RTS rates (odds ratio, 1.27 [95% confidence interval, 0.65; 2.48], Conclusions: The equality of outcomes between sexes and the low rates of revision, high rates of RTS, low pain scores, and high functional scores suggest that arthroscopic treatments are beneficial to both sexes. There was no significant difference in functional scores, revision rates, or RTS rates between men and women undergoing arthroscopic treatment for labral tears. The practical relevance of the statistically significant difference in Visual Analog Scale for Pain scores is negligible. Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review and meta-analysis 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.