Conservative interventions for treating exercise‐related musculotendinous, ligamentous and osseous groin pain

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Ir a:

Figure 1

Flow diagram showing the reference screening and study selection.

Figure 2

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus conventional physiotherapy, Outcome 1 'Successful treatment'.

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus conventional physiotherapy, Outcome 2 Patients' subjective global assessment (better or much better).

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus conventional physiotherapy, Outcome 3 Return to sports.

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Multi‐modal treatment versus exercise therapy, Outcome 1 'Successful treatment'.

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Multi‐modal treatment versus exercise therapy, Outcome 2 Maximum pain during sports.

Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Multi‐modal treatment versus exercise therapy, Outcome 3 Return to sports.

Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Multi‐modal treatment versus exercise therapy, Outcome 4 Time to return to sports (weeks).

Comparison 1. Exercise therapy versus conventional physiotherapy

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 'Successful treatment' Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

1.1 Follow‐up 16 weeks, per‐protocol analysis	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.2 Follow‐up 8 to 12 years, per‐protocol analysis	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.3 Follow‐up 8 to 12 years, intention‐to‐treat analysis	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2 Patients' subjective global assessment (better or much better) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

2.1 Follow‐up 16 weeks, per‐protocol analysis	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2.2 Follow‐up 16 weeks, intention‐to‐treat analysis	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2.3 Follow‐up 8 to 12 years, per‐protocol analysis	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2.4 Follow‐up 8 to 12 years, intention‐to‐treat analysis	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3 Return to sports Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

3.1 Per‐protocol analysis	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3.2 Intention‐to‐treat analysis	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Comparison 1. Exercise therapy versus conventional physiotherapy

Comparison 2. Multi‐modal treatment versus exercise therapy

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 'Successful treatment' Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

1.1 Per‐protocol analysis	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.2 Intention‐to‐treat analysis	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2 Maximum pain during sports Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

3 Return to sports Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

3.1 Per protocol analysis	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3.2 Intention‐to‐treat analysis	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4 Time to return to sports (weeks) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

Comparison 2. Multi‐modal treatment versus exercise therapy