ReviewHSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery2020
Clinical Outcomes and Quality of Literature Addressing Glenohumeral Internal Rotation Deficit: A Systematic Review.
Review in HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Glenohumeral internal rotation deficit: insights into pathologic, clinical, diagnostic, and therapeutic characteristics.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlenohumeral internal rotation deficit (GIRD) can negatively impact shoulder function particularly in the throwing athlete. QUESTIONS/PURPOSE: This study aimed to systematically evaluate recent trends in clinical outcomes and quality of published evidence pertaining to GIRD.
methodsA systematic review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Embase were searched from January 1, 2011, through April 23, 2017, for all articles evaluating GIRD. Two reviewers independently screened articles for eligibility and extracted data for analysis.
resultsEighty-two articles were included in the final review. In general, the overall number of articles published increased over time. Two-thirds of all studies were conducted in the USA. Seventy-eight percent (
conclusionCurrent trends in GIRD-related literature demonstrate limited focus on clinical, therapeutic, or patient-reported outcomes and mostly consist of low-level evidence. There is a lack of consensus in the literature on what clinically constitutes GIRD.
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.