Results of two Delphi survey rounds and ENHR* ranking exercise showing the level of agreement and ranking of 18 prioritised research priority statements on conditions affecting the young person’s hip†
| Statement | Round 1 | Round 2 | ICC‡ | ICC 95% CI | ENHR* | ||||
| Not important/disagree | Critical/agree | Not important/disagree | Critical/agree | Lower bound | Upper bound | Rank (score)§ | |||
| No | Research priorities | ||||||||
| 48 | Prospective cohort studies to investigate risk factors (aetiological and prognostic) of primary cam morphology in different cohorts | 0% | 87.3% | 0% | 95.3% | 0.85 | 0.74 | 0.91 | 13 (17.4) |
| 49 | Prospective cohort studies that investigate how primary cam morphology develops in cohorts with variable loading demands (eg, different sports/dance/physical activity level cohorts and sedentary cohorts) (causal inference approach to investigate load as a risk factor for primary cam morphology) | 0% | 90.3% | 0% | 98.4% | 0.77 | 0.63 | 0.86 | 14 (17.2) |
| 50 | Prospective cohort studies that investigate how primary cam morphology develops in different sex/gender cohorts, specifically women cohorts (causal inference approach to investigate gender as a risk factor for primary cam morphology) | 0% | 88.9% | 0% | 93.8% | 0.75 | 0.60 | 0.84 | 7 (18.5) |
| 51 | Prospective cohort studies that investigate how primary cam morphology develops in different parasport cohorts (causal inference approach to investigate load as a risk factor for primary cam morphology) | 3.2% | 64.5% | 1.6% | 71.4% | 0.87 | 0.80 | 0.92 | 18 (16.2) |
| 52 | Prospective cohort studies that investigate how primary cam morphology develops in different race/ethnic cohorts (causal inference approach to investigate race/ethnicity as a risk factor for primary cam morphology) | 1.6% | 66.7% | 0% | 78.1% | 0.81 | 0.70 | 0.88 | 16 (16.9) |
| 53 | Prospective cohort studies that investigate other potential risk factors for primary cam morphology (causal inference approach to investigate the following risk factors: anatomical spine, acetabulum, femur, kinetic and kinematic risk factors, mechanical and biomechanical, other possible risk factors that might emerge over time) | 1.6% | 75.8% | 0% | 84.1% | 0.80 | 0.69 | 0.88 | 17 (16.3) |
| 54 | Prospective cohort studies that investigate prognosis (consequences) of primary cam morphology in different cohorts | 0% | 85.5% | 0% | 93.8% | 0.83 | 0.71 | 0.90 | 4 (18.5) |
| 55 | Studies (including diagnostic accuracy studies) to determine the diagnostic criteria for cam and pincer morphology | 3.2% | 76.2% | 0% | 84.6% | 0.78 | 0.65 | 0.86 | 11 (17.8) |
| 56 | Studies to develop and validate diagnostic and prognostic models for primary cam morphology in young (maturing) athletes | 1.6% | 82.5% | 0% | 90.6% | 0.65 | 0.47 | 0.80 | 12 (17.4) |
| 57 | Prospective cohort studies to investigate how exercise intervention influences the development and prognosis of primary cam morphology in cohorts with variable loading demands | 4.8% | 74.6% | 3.1% | 82.8% | 0.84 | 0.74 | 0.90 | 10 (18.3) |
| 58 | Randomised controlled clinical trials to investigate how exercise intervention (load management) influences the development and prognosis of primary cam morphology in different demographic (eg, sex/gender, race/ethnicity) and load (variable loading demands—for example, different sports, dance and physical activity level) cohorts | 3.3% | 72.1% | 1.6% | 79.4% | 0.93 | 0.88 | 0.96 | 6 (18.5) |
| 59 | Studies to investigate the potential benefits and harms of screening for primary cam morphology in young athletes | 3.2% | 66.7% | 0% | 71.9% | 0.84 | 0.75 | 0.90 | 15 (17) |
| 64 | Prospective cohort studies to investigate risk factors for the development and prognosis of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome in different cohorts | 0% | 76.2% | 0% | 83.1% | 0.86 | 0.77 | 0.91 | 9 (18.37) |
| 65 | Randomised controlled clinical trials to investigate how exercise intervention influences the development and prognosis of FAI syndrome in cohorts with variable loading demands | 3.2% | 77.8% | 1.5% | 80.0% | 0.93 | 0.89 | 0.96 | 3 (18.9) |
| 66 | Randomised controlled clinical trials to investigate best practice physiotherapy versus arthroscopic hip surgery versus sham surgery in cohorts with variable loading demands diagnosed with FAI syndrome | 6.5% | 82.3% | 4.6% | 87.7% | 0.90 | 0.84 | 0.94 | 8 (18.4) |
| 67 | Prospective cohort studies to investigate the prognosis after best practice physiotherapy and/or arthroscopic hip surgery in different sport/dance/physical activity level cohorts with FAI syndrome | 4.8% | 68.3% | 1.5% | 73.8% | 0.89 | 0.83 | 0.94 | 5 (18.5) |
| 68 | Randomised controlled clinical trials to investigate what best practice physiotherapy is (eg, in different populations and settings; presurgery and postsurgery) | 1.6% | 79.4% | 0% | 78.1% | 0.96 | 0.93 | 0.98 | 1 (19.9) |
| 69 | Studies to determine the best criteria for rehabilitation progression and return-to-sport following the management of hip-related pain | 0% | 71.4% | 0% | 73.4% | 0.86 | 0.78 | 0.91 | 2 (19.3) |
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.
*Essential National Health Research ranking exercise.
†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 >0.9 indicated excellent reliability.
§Average ENHR ranking score (maximum score=24, representing the sum of average scores for four ranking categories, each with a maximum score of 6).
ENHR, Essential National Health Research.