Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31707188›Full record

SynthesisClinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon)2020

Finite element analysis of the rotator cuff: A systematic review.

Drew H Redepenning, Paula M Ludewig, John M Looft

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Optimal suturing techniques in patch-bridging reconstruction for massive rotator cuff tears: A finite element analysis.Asia-Pacific journal of sports medicine, arthroscopy, rehabilitation and technology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

3 authors.

Drew H RedepenningDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. Electronic address: redeped@amc.edu.
Paula M LudewigDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. Electronic address: ludew001@umn.edu.
John M LooftDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA; Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN 55417, USA. Electronic address: John.Looft@va.gov.

Funding

Musculoskeletal Training GrantT32AR050938 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI CLOHISY, DENIS R · 2004 to 2020
$3.0M
NIAMS NIH HHS T32 AR050938
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFinite element modeling serves as a promising tool for investigating underlying rotator cuff biomechanics and pathology. However, there are currently no concrete guidelines for reporting in finite element model studies. This has compromised the reliability, validity, and reproducibility of literature due to omission of pertinent items within publications. Recently a Finite Element Model Grading Procedure has been proposed as a reporting guideline for model developers. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of rotator cuff focused finite element models and characterize the reporting quality of those articles.

methodsA comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase to find relevant articles. Each article was graded and given a reporting quality ranking based on a score generated from the Finite Element Model Grading Procedure.

findingsWe found that only 5/22 articles had scores of 75% or higher and fell within the "exceptional" reporting quality range. Most of the articles (16/22) fell within the "good" reporting quality range with scores between 50% and 75%. However, 9/16 articles within the "good" reporting quality range had scores below 60%.

interpretationThis study indicates that improved guidelines and standards for good reporting practices must be made in the field of finite element modeling. Furthermore, it supports the use of the Finite Element Model Grading Procedure as an objective method for evaluating the quality of finite element model reporting in the literature.

Indexed as

Finite Element AnalysisHumansReproducibility of ResultsRotator CuffRotator Cuff InjuriesFinite element modelingRotator cuffShoulderSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31707188
PMCPMC7086380

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.