ArticleBMJ open2018
Bone marrow-stimulating techniques in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. 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.
- Comparative effects of bone marrow stimulation and shockwave therapy on rotator cuff healing in chronic massive rotator cuff tears: A rat model study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBone marrow-stimulating (BMS) techniques during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair surgery theoretically enhance the biological component for healing and hence improve tendon healing, but their efficacy remains unproven. The purpose of this review is to determine the effects and associated harms of BMS in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies (RCS) that compare outcomes following BMS use against no use of BMS during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair surgery. We will search the databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline and Embase, and clinical trial registries for relevant studies. We will include studies published from start of indexing until 23 August 2018. Two reviewers will independently assess the eligibility for studies. For each included trial, we will conduct duplicate independent data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We will use the Cochrane Collaboration tool to assess the risk of bias of included RCTs, while we will use the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions tool to evaluate the risk of bias of RCS. We will perform a random-effects meta-analysis in calculating the pooled risk estimates when appropriate. We will assess the overall quality of the data for each individual outcome using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development and Evaluation approach. The primary outcomes are tendon healing rate, overall pain and shoulder functions. The secondary outcomes are the proportion of participants with adverse events related to interventions, the range of motion and the proportion of participants with return to previous activities. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We will report this review according to the guidance of the PRISMA statement. The results of this review will be disseminated through conference presentations and publications in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018087161.
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.