Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34048450›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

Effectiveness of early versus delayed rehabilitation following rotator cuff repair: Systematic review and meta-analyses.

Bruno Mazuquin, Maria Moffatt, Peter Gill, James Selfe, Jonathan Rees, Steve Drew, Chris Littlewood

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07324174 (A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effectiveness of Early Versus Conservative Rehabilitation Following Rotator Cuff Repair), which is not on this map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT07324174 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effectiveness of Early Versus Conservative Rehabilitation Following Rotator Cuff Repair

TypeinterventionalSponsorKing Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research CenterRan2026 to 2029Enrolled86ConditionsRotator Cuff TearArmsGroup A, Therapeutic exercises, education and advice, Group B (Control Group)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Bruno MazuquinDepartment of Health Professions, Faculty of Health, Psychology and Social Care, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1566-9551
Maria MoffattDepartment of Health Professions, Faculty of Health, Psychology and Social Care, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8385-7418
Peter GillDepartment of Health Professions, Faculty of Health, Psychology and Social Care, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom.
James SelfeDepartment of Health Professions, Faculty of Health, Psychology and Social Care, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Jonathan ReesNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Science, University of Oxford and NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Steve DrewUniversity Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Chris LittlewoodDepartment of Health Professions, Faculty of Health, Psychology and Social Care, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7703-727X
Manchester Metropolitan University · GBUniversity Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of early rehabilitation compared with delayed/standard rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair for pain, function, range of movement, strength, and repair integrity.

designSystematic review and meta-analyses.

methodsWe searched databases and included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing early with delayed/standard rehabilitation for patients undergoing rotator cuff repair surgery. We assessed risk of bias of the RCTs using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool.

resultsTwenty RCTs, with 1841 patients, were included. The majority of the RCTs were of high or unclear risk of overall bias. We found substantial variations in the rehabilitation programmes, time in the sling and timing of exercise progression. We found no statistically significant differences for pain and function at any follow-up except for the outcome measure Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation at six months (MD: 6.54; 95%CI: 2.24-10.84) in favour of early rehabilitation. We found statistically significant differences in favour of early rehabilitation for shoulder flexion at six weeks (MD: 7.36; 95%CI: 2.66-12.06), three (MD: 8.45; 95%CI: 3.43-13.47) and six months (MD: 3.57; 95%CI: 0.81-6.32) and one year (MD: 1.42; 95%CI: 0.21-2.64) and similar differences for other planes of movement. In terms of repair integrity, early mobilisation does not seem to increase the risk of re-tears (OR:1.05; 95%CI: 0.64-1.75). DISCUSSION: Current approaches to early mobilisation, based largely on early introduction of passive movement, did not demonstrate significant differences in most clinical outcomes, although we found statistically significant differences in favour of early rehabilitation for range of movement. Importantly, there were no differences in repair integrity between early and delayed/standard rehabilitation. Most rehabilitation programmes did not consider early active movement as soon as the patient feels able. With ongoing variation in rehabilitation protocols there remains a need for large high quality RCT to inform the optimal approach to rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair surgery.

Indexed as

AnimalsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRange of Motion, ArticularRotator CuffRotator Cuff Injuries

Identifiers

PMID34048450
PMCPMC8162656
OpenAlexW3165751872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.