↓ Skip to main content

Protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing arthroscopic hip surgery to physiotherapy-led care for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI): the Australian FASHIoN trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
32 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
Title
Protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing arthroscopic hip surgery to physiotherapy-led care for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI): the Australian FASHIoN trial
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12891-017-1767-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas J. Murphy, Jillian Eyles, Kim L. Bennell, Megan Bohensky, Alexander Burns, Fraser M. Callaghan, Edward Dickenson, Camdon Fary, Stuart M. Grieve, Damian R. Griffin, Michelle Hall, Rachel Hobson, Young Jo Kim, James M. Linklater, David G. Lloyd, Robert Molnar, Rachel L. O’Connell, John O’Donnell, Michael O’Sullivan, Sunny Randhawa, Stephan Reichenbach, David J. Saxby, Parminder Singh, Libby Spiers, Phong Tran, Tim V. Wrigley, David J. Hunter

Abstract

Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAI), a hip disorder affecting active young adults, is believed to be a leading cause of hip osteoarthritis (OA). Current management approaches for FAI include arthroscopic hip surgery and physiotherapy-led non-surgical care; however, there is a paucity of clinical trial evidence comparing these approaches. In particular, it is unknown whether these management approaches modify the future risk of developing hip OA. The primary objective of this randomised controlled trial is to determine if participants with FAI who undergo hip arthroscopy have greater improvements in hip cartilage health, as demonstrated by changes in delayed gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of cartilage (dGEMRIC) index between baseline and 12 months, compared to those who undergo physiotherapy-led non-surgical management. This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, two-arm superiority randomised controlled trial comparing hip arthroscopy to physiotherapy-led management for FAI. A total of 140 participants with FAI will be recruited from the clinics of participating orthopaedic surgeons, and randomly allocated to receive either surgery or physiotherapy-led non-surgical care. The surgical intervention involves arthroscopic FAI surgery from one of eight orthopaedic surgeons specialising in this field, located in three different Australian cities. The physiotherapy-led non-surgical management is an individualised physiotherapy program, named Personalised Hip Therapy (PHT), developed by a panel to represent the best non-operative care for FAI. It entails at least six individual physiotherapy sessions over 12 weeks, and up to ten sessions over six months, provided by experienced musculoskeletal physiotherapists trained to deliver the PHT program. The primary outcome measure is the change in dGEMRIC score of a ROI containing both acetabular and femoral head cartilages at the chondrolabral transitional zone of the mid-sagittal plane between baseline and 12 months. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcomes and several structural and biomechanical measures relevant to the pathogenesis of FAI and development of hip OA. Interventions will be compared by intention-to-treat analysis. The findings will help determine whether hip arthroscopy or an individualised physiotherapy program is superior for the management of FAI, including for the prevention of hip OA. Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry reference: ACTRN12615001177549 . Trial registered 2/11/2015 (retrospectively registered).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 114 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 22 19%
Student > Master 18 16%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Professor 8 7%
Researcher 8 7%
Other 30 26%
Unknown 19 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 23%
Sports and Recreations 11 10%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 24 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 09 August 2018.
All research outputs
#845,628
of 13,791,430 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#167
of 2,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,281
of 272,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,791,430 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,733 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 272,665 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them