Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25430714›Full record

SynthesisOrthopaedic surgery2014

Arthroscopic single-row versus double-row technique for repairing rotator cuff tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zhi-min Ying, Tiao Lin, Shi-gui Yan

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Orthopaedic surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Rotator cuff repair with single row technique provides satisfying clinical results despite consistent MRI retear rate.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2022
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Zhi-min YingDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Tiao Lin
Shi-gui Yan
Harvard University · USSecond Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University · CNZhejiang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to systematically review published reports that compare the outcomes of single-row and double-row suture anchor fixation in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

methodsCombined data regarding relevant patient characteristics, rotator cuff pathology, surgical techniques, postoperative rehabilitation regimens, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Scores, Constant scores, American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) scores, tendon healing, incidence of recurrent rotator cuff defects, shoulder muscle strength, range of motion, surgical time and patient satisfaction were assessed.

resultsSeven eligible randomized controlled studies and four prospective cohort studies were identified. There were no significant differences between the single-row and double-row groups in terms of Constant or ASES scores. However, UCLA scores, tendon healing, abduction shoulder strength index (SSI), external rotation SSI and internal rotation SSI were significantly better for double-row technique than for single-row technique. A statistically significant advantage for double-row repair according to UCLA score and external rotation SSI was found in the subgroup with tears greater than 3 cm.

conclusionNo definite conclusion could be drawn about differences in overall outcomes of double- and single-row techniques for repairing for small to medium (<3 cm) or large to massive (>3 cm) rotator cuff tears, even though some measures of clinical outcome showed significant differences between these two techniques.

Indexed as

Rotator Cuff InjuriesSuture AnchorsArthroscopyHumansModels, StatisticalRotator CuffSuture TechniquesTendon InjuriesTreatment OutcomeArthroscopyDouble-row techniqueRotator cuffSingle-row technique

Identifiers

PMID25430714
PMCPMC6583296
OpenAlexW1585606915

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.