Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32548593›Full record

ReviewArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2020

A Review of Online Rehabilitation Protocols Designated for Rotator Cuff Repairs.

Reed G Coda, Sana G Cheema, Christina A Hermanns, Armin Tarakemeh, Matthew L Vopat, Meghan Kramer, John Paul Schroeppel, Scott Mullen, Bryan G Vopat

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 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. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Current concepts in the rehabilitation of rotator cuff related disorders.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2021
    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

9 authors.

Reed G CodaUniversity of Kansas School of MedicineSystematic Review, U.S.A.
Sana G CheemaUniversity of Kansas School of MedicineSystematic Review, U.S.A.
Christina A HermannsUniversity of Kansas School of MedicineSystematic Review, U.S.A.
Armin TarakemehUniversity of Kansas School of MedicineSystematic Review, U.S.A.
Matthew L VopatUniversity of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita, U.S.A.
Meghan KramerUniversity of Kansas School of MedicineSystematic Review, U.S.A.
John Paul SchroeppelUniversity of Kansas School of MedicineSystematic Review, U.S.A.
Scott MullenUniversity of Kansas School of MedicineSystematic Review, U.S.A.
Bryan G VopatUniversity of Kansas School of MedicineSystematic Review, U.S.A.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare publicly available rehabilitation protocols designated for rotator cuff (RTC) repairs published online by academic residency programs and private practice institutions.

methodsA systematic electronic search using the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access System (FREIDA) was performed for RTC repair rehabilitation protocols. Private practice programs with published rehabilitation protocols that were discovered during the Google search were also included for review, but no comprehensive search for private practice protocols was performed. The main exclusion criteria consisted of non-English-language protocols and protocols without any of the time-based components in question. Included protocols were assessed independently based on the specified RTC tear size (small [≤1 cm], medium [1-4 cm], large or massive [≥5 cm], or no mention of size). Protocols were compared based on the inclusion, exclusion, and timing of certain rehabilitation components.

resultsA total of 96 rehabilitation protocols were included for review, from 39 academic institutions and 28 private practice programs. Specific instructions for concomitant biceps tenodesis were included in 26 protocols (27.1%). Of the 96 protocols, 88 (91.7%) did not place restrictions on early postoperative passive range of motion (PROM) of the shoulder. Isolated PROM with restrictions on active range of motion was most commonly recommended for the first 4 or 6 weeks postoperatively (80.2%). Use of a sling or immobilizer was most frequently recommended for the first 4 or 6 weeks postoperatively (78.1%). Wide variation was noted in recommendations for returning to resistance strengthening, with the highest incidence being 27 protocols recommending returning at 12 weeks (28.1%); this further varied based on the size of the tear. A total of 21 protocols (21.9%) recommended the use of cryotherapy postoperatively.

conclusionsAlthough certain rehabilitation components were common, such as duration of PROM and sling or immobilizer use, a large degree of variation remains among published rehabilitation protocols after RTC repair, and this variability is still seen even when subdividing by the size or severity of the RTC tear. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Rehabilitation after RTC repair is crucial to patient outcomes. This study summarizes the variability among online rehabilitation protocols for RTC repair in the United States and emphasizes the importance of appropriate rehabilitation after RTC surgery.

Identifiers

PMID32548593
PMCPMC7283951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.