Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33029044›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedics

Mathematical modeling of glenoid bone loss demonstrate differences in calculations that May affect surgical decision making.

Stephen A Parada, Matthew C Jones, Mikalyn T DeFoor, B Gage Griswold, Aaron D Roberts, Matthew T Provencher

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Stephen A ParadaDepartment of Orthopaedics, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University Medical Center, Augusta, GA, USA.
Matthew C JonesDepartment of Orthopaedics, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University Medical Center, Augusta, GA, USA.
Mikalyn T DeFoorSchool of Medicine, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA.
B Gage GriswoldDepartment of Orthopaedics, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University Medical Center, Augusta, GA, USA.
Aaron D RobertsDepartment of Orthopaedics, Winn Army Community Hospital, Ft Stewart, GA, USA.
Matthew T ProvencherSteadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, CO, USA.
Augusta University · USSteadman Philippon Research Institute · USWinn Army Community Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTwo glenoid bone loss calculations are compared across a range of anatomic glenoid sizes.

methods20 cadaveric paired glenoid diameters were measured to create glenoid models with bone loss calculated in 1 mm linear increments up to 50% bone loss comparing the linear measurement percentage (LMP) to the circle line method (CLM) gold standard.

resultsThe LMP overestimates glenoid bone loss at every potential 1 mm increment across each glenoid model until bone loss reaches 50%.

conclusionThe widely-used LMP method overestimates bone loss compared to a gold standard potentially misguiding surgeons towards bony reconstruction in shoulder instability during preoperative planning.

Indexed as

ArthroscopyCircle line method (CLM)Glenoid bone lossLinear measurement percentage (LMP)Mathematical modelingShoulder instability

Identifiers

PMID33029044
PMCPMC7527674
OpenAlexW3088358982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.