Results of two Delphi survey rounds showing the level of agreement on 20 non-prioritised research priority statements on conditions affecting the young person’s hip*
| Statement | Round 1 | Round 2 | ICC† | ICC 95% CI | ||||
| Not important/disagree | Critical/agree | Not important/disagree | Critical/agree | Lower bound | Upper bound | |||
| No | Research priorities | |||||||
| 60 | Studies involving economic evaluation to determine the cost-effectiveness of different diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic approaches to primary cam morphology | 6.3% | 55.6% | 3.1% | 62.5% | 0.84 | 0.74 | 0.90 |
| 61 | Qualitative/mixed-methods studies to investigate the perspectives/preferences/attitudes/concerns/experiences of primary cam morphology stakeholders (eg, but not limited to: athletes/parents/coaches/patients with hip disease/clinicians/researchers) | 4.8% | 52.4% | 3.1% | 53.1% | 0.91 | 0.85 | 0.94 |
| 62 | Prospective cohort studies that investigate how pincer morphology develops in different cohorts | 0.0% | 45.3% | 0% | 46.2% | 0.87 | 0.80 | 0.92 |
| 63 | Prospective cohort studies that investigate pincer morphology prognosis in different cohorts | 1.6% | 45.3% | 1.5% | 47.7% | 0.94 | 0.90 | 0.96 |
| 70 | Studies to investigate; report and improve the psychometric properties of tests of: (1) range of motion, (2) muscle strength, (3) functional performance, (4) quality of life and other psychological outcomes for studies on aetiology, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis | 4.9% | 60.7% | 3.2% | 57.1% | 0.95 | 0.92 | 0.97 |
| 71 | Studies to investigate the relationship among movement-related parameters (biomechanics; muscle function), symptoms, function, quality of life and imaging and intra-articular hip findings in individuals with hip-related pain | 6.6% | 54.1% | 3.2% | 52.4% | 0.96 | 0.94 | 0.98 |
| 72 | Studies (randomised controlled clinical trials, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, qualitative studies) to investigate the clinical effectiveness of other treatments used in people with hip-related pain (hip joint intra-articular injections; analgesic and anti-inflammatory medications; manual therapy adjunctive techniques, such as taping, bracing and orthotics) | 1.6% | 57.1% | 1.6% | 62.5% | 0.91 | 0.85 | 0.95 |
| 73 | Studies to investigate the cost-effectiveness of different diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic approaches to femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome and primary cam morphology | 3.1% | 51.6% | 1.5% | 58.5% | 0.92 | 0.87 | 0.95 |
| 74 | Qualitative studies to investigate the perspectives/preferences/attitudes/concerns/experiences of FAI syndrome (including FAI syndrome and primary cam morphology) stakeholders (eg, but not limited to: athletes/parents/coaches/patients with hip disease/clinicians/researchers) | 6.6% | 54.1% | 3.1% | 58.5% | 0.93 | 0.88 | 0.96 |
| 75 | Education intervention studies (pilot studies; randomised controlled trials) in individuals with hip-related pain to assess the specific effect of patient education (in addition to other interventions, eg, exercise intervention) on predefined patient-related outcomes. For education intervention, consider content, modes of delivery and the use of innovative technologies to enhance education benefits | 6.5% | 51.6% | 1.5% | 53.8% | 0.95 | 0.91 | 0.97 |
| 76 | Studies to investigate the performance of the diagnostic criteria for hip disease presenting with hip-related pain in young and active adults | 1.6% | 65.1% | 0% | 66.2% | 0.87 | 0.79 | 0.92 |
| 77 | Core outcome set development studies for each of the conditions related to hip disease/hip-related pain in young and active adults | 1.6% | 61.3% | 0% | 61.3% | 0.88 | 0.81 | 0.93 |
| 78 | Research studies into the utility of HAGOS and iHOT instruments in a non-surgical treatment context | 0% | 60.0% | 0% | 58.7% | 0.93 | 0.88 | 0.96 |
| 79 | Studies to analyse content and structural validity, and the relationship between individual measurement error and the minimal clinically important change for the recommended PROMs | 4.8% | 54.8% | 1.6% | 51.6% | 0.85 | 0.77 | 0.91 |
| 80 | Studies to investigate the impact of the diagnostic components of a specific hip condition on diagnostic or prognostic thinking (eg, stratifying patients into high and low risk) in young and active adults | 1.6% | 55.6% | 0.0% | 56.3% | 0.92 | 0.87 | 0.95 |
| 81 | Studies to develop and validate diagnostic and prognostic models for the different hip diseases presenting with hip-related pain in young persons | 4.8% | 63.5% | 1.5% | 64.6% | 0.88 | 0.80 | 0.92 |
| 82 | Studies to investigate the additional benefit of advanced imaging (eg, MRI and/ or CT scan) for diagnosis of hip disease presenting with hip-related pain in young and active adults | 7.9% | 50.8% | 1.5% | 49.2% | 0.88 | 0.82 | 0.93 |
| 83 | Studies to investigate the additional benefit of advanced imaging (eg, MRI and/ or CT scan) for agreeing on an appropriate treatment strategy for hip disease presenting with hip-related pain in young and active adults | 8.1% | 56.5% | 1.6% | 54.7% | 0.84 | 0.75 | 0.90 |
| 84 | Studies to investigate the additional benefit of advanced imaging (eg, MRI and/or CT scan) for the prognosis of hip disease presenting with hip-related pain in young and active adults | 6.3% | 52.4% | 0.0% | 53.8% | 0.79 | 0.68 | 0.87 |
| 85 | Studies to investigate the cost-effectiveness of different diagnostic and therapeutic approaches in conditions affecting the young person’s hip. | 7.9% | 49.2% | 6.2% | 53.8% | 0.91 | 0.85 | 0.94 |
Green (high agreement on ‘consensus in’): statement scored as critical (Likert Scale 7 to 9) by ≥70% of panel members and not important (Likert Scale 1 to 3) by <15% of panel members.
Red (high agreement on ‘consensus out’): scored as not important (Likert Scale 1 to 3) by ≥70% of panel members and critical (Likert Scale 7 to 9) by <15% of panel members.
Yellow (non-consensus): neither of the ‘consensus in’ or ‘consensus out’ criteria were met.
*We reported the results of statements 1 to 47 in a linked paper (Oxford consensus study—Part 1).
†ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient; type A ICCs using an absolute agreement definition; two-way mixed effects model where people effects are random and measures effects are fixed. ICC is an indication of the level of agreement—stability (within-subject variation and between-subject variance of individual statement scores between Round 1 and Round 2.) We used the lower bound 95% CI of the ICC estimate as the basis to evaluate the level of reliability (stability) using the following general guideline: values <0.5 were classified as poor reliability, ICC values 0.5 to 0.75 indicated moderate reliability, 0.75 to 0.9 indicated good reliability and ICC values >0.9 indicated excellent reliability.
HAGOS, Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score; iHOT, International Hip Outcome Tool; PROMs, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.