SynthesisKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2017
Distal biceps brachii tendon repair: a systematic review of patient outcome determination using modified Coleman methodology score criteria.
Synthesis in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- What Are the Most Clinically Effective Nonoperative Interventions for Thumb Carpometacarpal Osteoarthritis? An Up-to-date Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2025Pooled it
- Autogenic mesenchymal stem cells for intervertebral disc regeneration.International orthopaedics · 2019Pooled it
- Postoperative rehabilitation and return to sport criteria following distal biceps tendon rupture surgery.JSES international · 2025Review
- Image Enhancement Technology Based on Deep Trust Network Model in Clinical Treatment of Traumatology and Orthopedics.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis systematic literature review evaluated the methodological research design quality of studies that evaluated patient outcomes following distal biceps brachii tendon repair and developed evidence-based recommendations for future patient clinical outcomes research.
methodsFollowing the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses criteria, and using "biceps brachii", "tendon", "repair" and "outcome assessment" search terms, the CINAHL, Academic Search Premier and MEDLINE databases were searched from January 1960-October 2015. The modified Coleman methodology score (MCMS) served as the primary outcome measure. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed for composite and component MCMS and for patient outcome assessment methodology use frequency.
resultsA total of 93 studies were evaluated. Overall MCMS was low (57.1 ± 14). Only 12 (12.9 %) had prospective cohort or randomized controlled trial designs. There was a moderate relationship between publication year and MCMS (r = 0.53, P < 0.0001). Although 61 studies (65.6 %) had adequate surgical descriptions, only 3 (3.2 %) had well-described rehabilitation. Of 2253 subjects, only 39 (1.7 %) were women. Studies published after 2008 had higher MCMS scores than studies published earlier (61.3 ± 10 versus 52.9 ± 16, P = 0.003).
conclusionAlthough overall research study methodological scores improved on average since 2008, generally low MCMS scores, retrospective designs, lack of eccentric elbow flexor or supinator strength testing, and poorly described surgical and rehabilitation descriptions remain commonplace. These findings decrease clinical study validity and generalizability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26658570What 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.