Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31671101›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2019

Effects of arthroscopic vs. mini-open rotator cuff repair on function, pain & range of motion. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Goris Nazari, Joy C MacDermid, Dianne Bryant, Neha Dewan, George S Athwal

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Position statement: management of rotator cuff tears in adults.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Goris NazariSchool of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health Science, Western University, London, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9130-3266
Joy C MacDermidSchool of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health Science, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Dianne BryantSchool of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health Science, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Neha DewanDepartment of Health Sciences, Lakehead University, Canada.
George S AthwalCollaborative Program in Musculoskeletal Health Research, Bone and Joint Institute, Western University, London, ON Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the effectiveness of arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair on function, pain and range of motion at 3-, 6- and 12-month follow ups.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

settingClinical setting.

participantsPatients 18 years and older with a rotator cuff tear. INTERVENTION/COMPARISON: Arthroscopic/mini-open rotator cuff repair surgery followed by post operative rehabilitation.

main outcome measuresFunction and pain.

resultsSix RCTs (n = 670) were included. The pooled results, demonstrated no significant difference between arthroscopic and mini open approach to rotator cuff repair on function (very low quality, 4 RCTs, 495 patients, SMD 0.00, 3-month; very low quality, 4 RCTs, 495 patients, SMD -0.01, 6-month; very low quality, 3 RCTs, 462 patients, SMD -0.09, 12-months). For pain, the pooled results, were not statistically different between groups (very low quality, 3 RCTs, 254 patients, MD -0.21, 3-month; very low quality, 3 RCTs, 254 patients, MD -0.03, 6-month; very low quality, 2 RCTs, 194 patients, MD -0.35, 12-months).

conclusionThe effects of arthroscopic compared to mini-open rotator cuff repair, on function, pain and range of motion are too small to be clinically important at 3-, 6- and 12-month follow ups.

Indexed as

ArthroscopyAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPainPain ManagementRange of Motion, ArticularRotator Cuff Tear ArthropathyYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31671101
PMCPMC6822715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.