ArticleJSES international2021
Shoulder surgeon perspective of surgical device representatives: a multinational survey.
Article in JSES international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of extended reality, virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed reality in clinical practice, education and research in knee arthroplasty: A scoping review.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Virtual and augmented reality for surgical training and simulation in knee arthroplasty.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2021Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to determine the working relationships of shoulder surgeons and surgical device representatives, and benefits or detractors to the operating environment.
methodsAn electronic survey was distributed to all members of the Codman Shoulder Society, an international group of fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons.
resultsThe response rate was 44% (59 of 134). Mean yearly case volume was estimated as 253.3 ± 126.7, with 205.7 ± 119.6 cases having a surgical device representative present (81.2%). Among respondents, 41.1% (23 of 56) expressed wishes for the increased presence of device representatives during cases. A majority, 78.6% (44 of 56), felt that the presence of a device representative improved the efficiency of the operating room, with 7.3% (4 of 55) identifying an inability to use certain equipment without instruction. Valued qualities of device representatives were identified as attentiveness, organized, knowledgeable, honest, and available, whereas qualities not valued were pushiness/salesmanship, unpreparedness, disengagement, and disorganized. Median working time with the same representative was 5 years (0.5-20 years) with 94.4% (53 of 56) of respondents identifying desire for familiarity. A large proportion, 42.9% (24 of 56), identified changing their implants based on qualities of device representatives. Only 26.8% (15 of 56) felt that the presence of a device representative should be disclosed to a patient.
conclusionsHigh-volume shoulder surgeons partially dictate the use of surgically implanted devices and make decisions based on valued or disvalued surgical device representative traits. Working relationships between the shoulder surgeon and device representatives proceed longitudinally and are significant in establishing long-term company relationships.
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.