ArticleOpen access journal of sports medicine2015
Magnetic resonance imaging arthrography following type II superior labrum from anterior to posterior repair: interobserver and intraobserver reliability.
Article in Open access journal of sports medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Open coraco-clavicular ligament reconstruction (CCLR) in treatment of displaced distal clavicle fractures has low complication rate and excellent union rate: a systematic review.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Pooled it
- [Dislocation of the acromioclavicular joint].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- [Magnetic resonance imaging findings after shoulder surgery: What the radiologist needs to know].Der Radiologe · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArthroscopic repair of type II superior labrum from anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesions is a common surgical procedure. However, anatomic healing following repair has rarely been investigated. The intraobserver and interobserver reliability of magnetic resonance imaging arthrography (MRA) following type II SLAP repair has not previously been investigated. This is of particular interest due to recent reports of poor clinical results following type II SLAP lesion repair. PURPOSE: To evaluate the MRA findings following arthroscopic type II SLAP lesion repair and determine its intraobserver and interobserver reliability. STUDY
designCohort study (diagnosis), Level of Evidence, 2.
methodsTwenty-five patients with an isolated type II SLAP lesion (confirmed via diagnostic arthroscopy) underwent standard suture anchor-based repair. At a mean of 25.2 months post-operatively, patients underwent a standardized MRA protocol to investigate the integrity of the repair. MRAs were independently reviewed by two radiologists and a fellowship trained shoulder surgeon. The outcomes were classified as healed SLAP repair or re-torn SLAP repair.
resultsOn average, 54% of MRAs were interpreted as healed SLAP repairs while 46% of MRAs were interpreted as having a re-torn SLAP repair. Overall, only 43% of the studies had 100% agreement across all interpretations. The intraobserver reliability ranged from 0.71 to 0.81 while the interobserver reliability between readers ranged from 0.13 to 0.44 (Table 1).
conclusionThe intraobserver agreement of MRA in the evaluation of type II SLAP repair was substantial to excellent. However, the interobserver agreement of MRA was poor to fair. As a result, the routine use of MRA in the evaluation of type II SLAP lesion repair should be utilized with caution. A global evaluation of the patient, including detailed history and physical examination, is paramount in determining the cause of failure and one should not rely on MRA alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.