Are Exercise Therapy Protocols For The Treatment of Hip-Related Pain Adequately Described? A Systematic Review of Intervention Descriptions.
August Estberger, Joanne L Kemp, Kristian Thorborg and 2 others
PMID 36793572WHAT IT FOUND
Most hip pain exercise studies fail to describe the intervention clearly enough for others to copy.
Only 23 of 52 trials provided enough detail, and none scored perfectly on reporting guidelines. Clinicians cannot replicate or trust the specific dosages and progressions used in these protocols.
Key findings
01Only 23 of 52 studies using exercise therapy for hip pain reported enough detail to be included in the quality synthesis.
02Reporting completeness did not improve after the release of the CERT guidelines; studies published in 2019 or later had significantly worse scores than those published earlier.
03Critical details for clinical application, such as motivation strategies and starting levels, were reported in fewer than 15% of the included studies.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The results are based on only 23 of the 52 studies found, because 29 studies provided no intervention details at all. This likely makes the reported quality look better than it actually is across the whole field. The CERT tool does not have a defined 'passing' score, so it is difficult to judge if a score of 12 is 'good' or 'bad' clinically, only that it is incomplete. The review excluded qualitative studies and case reports that did not meet the minimum description threshold, potentially missing context on why reporting is poor.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the median score of 12 as evidence that hip pain exercise therapy is well-described in the literature. It is not. The score only reflects the minority of studies that provided any detail at all, and even those failed to describe critical elements like motivation and starting levels. Most of the field remains opaque.