Author Names
Joanne Kemp
Reviewer Name
Chante Pettiford, SPT
Reviewer Affiliation(s)
Duke University Doctor of Physical Therapy Program
Paper Abstract
Despite the increasing use of hip arthroscopy for hip pain, there is no level 1 evidence to support physiotherapy rehabilitation programs following this procedure. The aims of this study were to determine (i) what is the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) investigating a targeted physiotherapy intervention for early-onset hip
osteoarthritis (OA) post-hip arthroscopy? and (ii) what are the within-group treatment effects of the physiotherapy intervention and a health-education control group?
NIH Risk of Bias Tool
1. Was the study described as randomized, a randomized trial, a randomized clinical trial, or an RCT ? Yes
2. Was the method of randomization adequate (i.e., use of randomly generated assignment)? Yes
4. Were study participants and providers blinded to treatment group assignment? Yes
5. Were the people assessing the outcomes blinded to the participants’ group assignments? Yes
8. Was the differential drop-out rate (between treatment groups) at endpoint 15 percentage points or lower? Yes
9. Was there high adherence to the intervention protocols for each treatment group? Yes
11. Were outcomes assessed using valid and reliable measures, implemented consistently across all study participants? Yes
13. Were outcomes reported or subgroups analyzed prespecified (i.e., identified before analyses were conducted)?
14. Were all randomized participants analyzed in the group to which they were originally assigned, i.e., did they use an intention-to-treat analysis? Yes
3. Did the literature search strategy use a comprehensive, systematic approach?
4. Were titles, abstracts, and full-text articles dually and independently reviewed for inclusion and exclusion to minimize bias? Yes
1. Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated?
2. Was the study population clearly specified and defined? Yes
3. Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%? Yes
10. Was the exposure(s) assessed more than once over time? Yes
11. Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? Yes
12. Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants? Yes
13. Was loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less? No
14. Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposure(s) and outcome(s)?
1. Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated and appropriate? Yes
2. Was the study population clearly specified and defined? Yes
1. Was the study question or objective clearly stated? Yes
3. Were the participants in the study representative of those who would be eligible for the test/service/intervention in the general or clinical population of interest? Yes
8. Were the people assessing the outcomes blinded to the participants’ exposures/interventions? Yes
11. Were outcome measures of interest taken multiple times before the intervention and multiple times after the intervention (i.e., did they use an interrupted time-series design)? Yes
1. Was the study question or objective clearly stated? Yes
2. Was the study population clearly and fully described, including a case definition? Yes
3. Were the cases consecutive?
4. Were the subjects comparable? Yes
5. Was the intervention clearly described? No
8. Were the statistical methods well-described? Yes
9. Were the results well-described? Yes
Key Finding #1
Patient Compliance was high during the treatment session. There was no loss to follow-up occurred at the end of the study treatment period.
Key Finding #2
Flexion Range of Motion (ROM) did not improve significantly in either group.
Key Finding #3
Muscle strength gains were minimal, possibly due to factors such as specificity of exercises, timing of intervention, and program progression.
Key Finding #4
Funding constraints limited the number of intervention sessions and the duration of treatment
Please provide your summary of the paper
The study focused on one group receiving education and another receiving physical therapy interventions. During the study, the patients reported positive changes in factors such as symptoms, pain levels, and daily activities. This suggests that the physical therapy interventions had a favorable impact on the subjective experiences of the participants. The improvements in the patient’s range of motion and muscle strength were noted to be minimal. The study observed only minimal enhancements in these physical aspects among the participants. This could imply that the physical therapy interventions may have had a more significant influence on subjective factors rather than producing substantial changes in objective measures such as joint Range of motion or muscle strength.
Please provide your clinical interpretation of this paper. Include how this study may impact clinical practice and how the results can be implemented.
The clinical interpretation of the paper was showing patient adherence to PT services. The study showed significant improvement in the patient-reported outcome. Nonetheless, the positive aspects of patient adherence and willingness to participate in future trials underscore the potential value and acceptability of physical therapy interventions, laying the groundwork for further research and exploration in this area.
