Trial reportPatient preference and adherence2020
Post-Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Rehabilitation Booklet: A Patient-Based Evaluation.
Trial report in Patient preference and adherence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A longitudinal qualitative study on decision-making and rehabilitation behavior in patients following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Assessing the influence of obesity on rotator cuff repair surgical and functional outcomes: a meta-analysis.JSES international · 2025Review
- Sub-Acromioclavicular Decompression Increases the Risk of Postoperative Shoulder Stiffness after Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair.Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Article
- Motivation and Barriers to Postoperative Rehabilitation Exercise in Type 2 Diabetic Patients with Rotator Cuff Injuries: A Qualitative Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Does the Fatty Infiltration Influence the Re-tear Rate and Functional Outcome After Rotator Cuff Repair? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2023Review
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
backgroundLack of physical therapists has led to increment of self-managed rehabilitations in post-arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) in the forms of booklets or leaflets. PURPOSE: The aim of study is to investigate 1) the acceptance of post-ARCR patients towards an education booklet, and 2) whether it could be a timesaving and laborsaving tool to physical therapists.
methodsAn education booklet was established through a systematic review. Patients who underwent ARCR in our hospital were included and randomly assigned to the intervention or control group (27 women, 21 men, mean age=57.06 years old). Patients in the intervention group received educational booklets, and an evaluation was also obtained after they finished reading. Patients' understanding of the booklet was determined by asking patients to re-enact training presented in the booklet. Then, a therapist blinded to allocations would personally demonstrate training to patients until patients fully understood the protocol. For the control group, the same therapist coached patients until the whole protocol was clearly understood. The coaching time for patients in both groups was recorded.
resultsOut of 48 patients, 24 (50%) were randomly assigned to the intervention group, and 21 (87.50%) completed their questionnaire. Out of these 21 patients, 20 (95.24%) rated the booklet as "excellent and easy to read", and 17 (80.95%) felt that the booklet was helpful. The re-enaction accuracy was for strengthening training and specific training (71.43% and 61.90%, respectively). As compared to the control group, the time of coaching for the patients to fully master the protocol in the intervention group was significantly less (
conclusionPatients highly applauded this booklet, and they cherished the information and support it contained. Nevertheless, the re-enaction accuracy was not high, suggesting that the high level of acceptance does not guarantee full understanding of information sent to patients.
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.