↓ Skip to main content

A pilot randomised clinical trial of physiotherapy (manual therapy, exercise, and education) for early-onset hip osteoarthritis post-hip arthroscopy

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A pilot randomised clinical trial of physiotherapy (manual therapy, exercise, and education) for early-onset hip osteoarthritis post-hip arthroscopy
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40814-017-0157-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanne Kemp, Kate Moore, Marlene Fransen, Trevor Russell, Matthew Freke, Kay M Crossley

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? This study was a pilot single-blind RCT conducted in a private physiotherapy clinic in Hobart, Australia. Patients included 17 volunteers (nine women; age 32 ± 8 years; body mass index = 25.6 ± 5.1 kg/m(2)) who were recruited 4-14 months post-hip arthroscopy, with chondropathy and/or labral pathology at the time of surgery. Interventions included a physiotherapy treatment program that was semi-standardised and consisted of (i) manual therapy; (ii) hip strengthening and functional retraining; and (iii) health education. Control treatment encompassed individualised health education sessions. The primary outcome measure was feasibility, which was reported as percentage of eligible participants enrolled, adherence with the intervention, and losses to follow-up. The research process was evaluated using interviews, and an estimated sample size for a definitive study is offered. Secondary outcomes included the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and the International Hip Outcome Tool (IHOT-33) patient-reported outcomes. Seventeen out of 48 eligible patients (35%) were randomised. Adherence to the intervention was 100%, with no losses to follow-up. The estimated sample size for a full-scale RCT was 142 patients. The within-group (95% confidence intervals) change scores for the physiotherapy group were HOOS-Symptoms 6 points (-4 to 16); HOOS-Pain 10 points (-2 to 22); HOOS-Activity of Daily Living 8 points (0 to 16); HOOS-Sport 3 points (-12 to 19); HOOS-Quality of Life 3 points (-7 to 13); and IHOT-33 7 points (-10 to 25). The within-group (95% confidence intervals) change scores for the control group were HOOS-Symptoms -4 points (-17 to 9); HOOS-Pain -2 points (-18 to 13); HOOS-Activity of Daily Living -7 points (-17 to 4); HOOS-Sport 4 points (-16 to 23); HOOS-Quality of Life -5 points (-18 to 9); and IHOT-33 -4 points (-27 to 19). Suggestions to improve study design included greater supervision of exercises and increased access to physiotherapy appointments. Results support the feasibility of a full-scale RCT, and recommendations for an adequately powered and improved study to determine the efficacy of this physiotherapy intervention post-hip arthroscopy to reduce pain and improve function are provided. Australian Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12614000426684.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 150 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 16%
Student > Bachelor 23 15%
Researcher 11 7%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 48 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 17%
Sports and Recreations 12 8%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 57 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 August 2017.
All research outputs
#13,974,629
of 24,721,757 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#567
of 1,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,766
of 317,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#14
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,721,757 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,700 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.