ReviewInternational orthopaedics2017
A vast majority of preliminary reports published in the shoulder literature are not followed by long-time follow-up studies - a literature review.
Review in International orthopaedics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Citations, non-citations and visibility of International Orthopaedics in 2017.International orthopaedics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of paper is to check how many preliminary reports (PR) reach a long-term publication (LT), and analyse differences in outcomes and complications between them.
methodsA literature search was performed to identify shoulder preliminary or early reports. Fifty one papers fulfilled criteria and were categorized for paper topic. Bibliographic searches were undertaken to find LT on the topic from the same author or research group. Outcomes and complications reported in PR were recorded and compared to those reported in LT.
resultsTen out of 51 PR (19.61 %) were followed by a LT with minimum follow-up of five years, by the same authors. Complication and reintervention rate were higher in the LT compared to PR (p < 0.05). Results published on PR were better than results published on LT even though these differences did not reach significance (p = 0.08). DISCUSSION: PR may represent the fastest way to spread new findings. However, concerns regarding short-term follow-up, small sample size bias and decrease in outcomes over time can discourage promising preliminary results.
conclusionsThe vast majority of preliminary reports never reached a LT follow-up paper. Preliminary reports underestimate complications and tend to overestimate outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27194160What 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.