Trial reportLancet (London, England)2018
Arthroscopic subacromial decompression for subacromial shoulder pain (CSAW): a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group, randomised surgical trial.
Trial report in Lancet (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01623011 (What is the Clinical and Cost Effectiveness of Arthroscopic Sub-acromial Decompression Surgery?), which is not on this map. Cited by 188 papers, 18 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.
What is the Clinical and Cost Effectiveness of Arthroscopic Sub-acromial Decompression Surgery?
Who cites it
188 citing papers in PubMed, 18 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 453 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline
- Guideline
- Arthroscopic procedures for degenerative rotator cuff disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- How do pilot and feasibility studies inform randomised placebo-controlled trials in surgery? A systematic review.BMJ open · 2023Pooled it
- How effective are physiotherapy interventions in treating people with sciatica? A systematic review and meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023Pooled it
- A review of trauma and orthopaedic randomised clinical trials published in high-impact general medical journals.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2022Pooled it
- Use of Placebo and Nonoperative Control Groups in Surgical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The effect of magnesium added to bupivacaine for arthroscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2021Pooled it
- Common elective orthopaedic procedures and their clinical effectiveness: umbrella review of level 1 evidence.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Pooled it
- Blinding, sham, and treatment effects in randomized controlled trials for back pain in 2000-2019: A review and meta-analytic approach.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2021Pooled it
- Gut Microbiota, Probiotics and Psychological States and Behaviors after Bariatric Surgery-A Systematic Review of Their Interrelation.Nutrients · 2020Pooled it
- Reporting of key methodological issues in placebo-controlled trials of surgery needs improvement: a systematic review.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2020Pooled it
- Subacromial decompression surgery for rotator cuff disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- How does surgery compare to sham surgery or physiotherapy as a treatment for tendinopathy? A systematic review of randomised trials.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, adjustable gastric banding or sleeve gastrectomy for severe obesity: The By-Band-Sleeve randomised controlled trial.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Trial
- Arthroscopic subacromial decompression versus placebo surgery for subacromial pain syndrome: 10 year follow-up of the FIMPACT randomised, placebo surgery controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Trial
128 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
18 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArthroscopic sub-acromial decompression (decompressing the sub-acromial space by removing bone spurs and soft tissue arthroscopically) is a common surgery for subacromial shoulder pain, but its effectiveness is uncertain. We did a study to assess its effectiveness and to investigate the mechanism for surgical decompression.
methodsWe did a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group trial at 32 hospitals in the UK with 51 surgeons. Participants were patients who had subacromial pain for at least 3 months with intact rotator cuff tendons, were eligible for arthroscopic surgery, and had previously completed a non-operative management programme that included exercise therapy and at least one steroid injection. Exclusion criteria included a full-thickness torn rotator cuff. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to arthroscopic subacromial decompression, investigational arthroscopy only, or no treatment (attendance of one reassessment appointment with a specialist shoulder clinician 3 months after study entry, but no intervention). Arthroscopy only was a placebo as the essential surgical element (bone and soft tissue removal) was omitted. We did the randomisation with a computer-generated minimisation system. In the surgical intervention groups, patients were not told which type of surgery they were receiving (to ensure masking). Patients were followed up at 6 months and 1 year after randomisation; surgeons coordinated their waiting lists to schedule surgeries as close as possible to randomisation. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (0 [worst] to 48 [best]) at 6 months, analysed by intention to treat. The sample size calculation was based upon a target difference of 4·5 points (SD 9·0). This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01623011.
findingsBetween Sept 14, 2012, and June 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 313 patients to treatment groups (106 to decompression surgery, 103 to arthroscopy only, and 104 to no treatment). 24 [23%], 43 [42%], and 12 [12%] of the decompression, arthroscopy only, and no treatment groups, respectively, did not receive their assigned treatment by 6 months. At 6 months, data for the Oxford Shoulder Score were available for 90 patients assigned to decompression, 94 to arthroscopy, and 90 to no treatment. Mean Oxford Shoulder Score did not differ between the two surgical groups at 6 months (decompression mean 32·7 points [SD 11·6] vs arthroscopy mean 34·2 points [9·2]; mean difference -1·3 points (95% CI -3·9 to 1·3, p=0·3141). Both surgical groups showed a small benefit over no treatment (mean 29·4 points [SD 11·9], mean difference vs decompression 2·8 points [95% CI 0·5-5·2], p=0·0186; mean difference vs arthroscopy 4·2 [1·8-6·6], p=0·0014) but these differences were not clinically important. There were six study-related complications that were all frozen shoulders (in two patients in each group).
interpretationSurgical groups had better outcomes for shoulder pain and function compared with no treatment but this difference was not clinically important. Additionally, surgical decompression appeared to offer no extra benefit over arthroscopy only. The difference between the surgical groups and no treatment might be the result of, for instance, a placebo effect or postoperative physiotherapy. The findings question the value of this operation for these indications, and this should be communicated to patients during the shared treatment decision-making process.
fundingArthritis Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, and the Royal College of Surgeons (England).
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.