Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25405091›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of orthopedics2014

Functional outcomes assessment in shoulder surgery.

James D Wylie, James T Beckmann, Erin Granger, Robert Z Tashjian

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of orthopedics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

89 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. The reliability of the forgotten joint score for shoulder arthroplasty.Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

29 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

James D WylieJames D Wylie, James T Beckmann, Erin Granger, Robert Z Tashjian, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, United States.
James T BeckmannJames D Wylie, James T Beckmann, Erin Granger, Robert Z Tashjian, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, United States.
Erin GrangerJames D Wylie, James T Beckmann, Erin Granger, Robert Z Tashjian, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, United States.
Robert Z TashjianJames D Wylie, James T Beckmann, Erin Granger, Robert Z Tashjian, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The effective evaluation and management of orthopaedic conditions including shoulder disorders relies upon understanding the level of disability created by the disease process. Validated outcome measures are critical to the evaluation process. Traditionally, outcome measures have been physician derived objective evaluations including range of motion and radiologic evaluations. However, these measures can marginalize a patient's perception of their disability or outcome. As a result of these limitations, patient self-reported outcomes measures have become popular over the last quarter century and are currently primary tools to evaluate outcomes of treatment. Patient reported outcomes measures can be general health related quality of life measures, health utility measures, region specific health related quality of life measures or condition specific measures. Several patients self-reported outcomes measures have been developed and validated for evaluating patients with shoulder disorders. Computer adaptive testing will likely play an important role in the arsenal of measures used to evaluate shoulder patients in the future. The purpose of this article is to review the general health related quality-of-life measures as well as the joint-specific and condition specific measures utilized in evaluating patients with shoulder conditions. Advances in computer adaptive testing as it relates to assessing dysfunction in shoulder conditions will also be reviewed.

Indexed as

Functional outcomeHealth utility measurePatient reported outcomeQuality-of-lifeShoulder

Identifiers

PMID25405091
PMCPMC4133470

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.