ArticleJournal of physical therapy science2021
Long-term prognoses of patients with and without re-rupture after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.
Article in Journal of physical therapy science, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Functional recovery prediction during rehabilitation after rotator cuff tears by decision support system.PloS one · 2024Trial
- Factors associated with subjective shoulder function preoperatively and postoperatively after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.JSES international · 2024Article
- Improving Postoperative Care Through Mindfulness-Based and Isometric Exercise Training Interventions: Systematic Review.JMIR perioperative medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
[Purpose] We followed-up patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) for 2 years to assess the prognosis of rotator cuff tears and compared the outcomes of the patients with and without re-rupture. We also examined the usefulness of Shoulder36, a self-assessment tool, for assessing the long-term prognosis in patients undergoing ARCR. [Participants and Methods] We included 28 patients who received occupational therapy pre- and post-ARCR between April 2012 and August 2015 and categorized them based on the occurrence of re-rupture. We followed-up on their prognoses for 2 years using physical examination and Shoulder36 assessment. [Results] Re-rupture occurred in five patients within 3 months of treatment. During the 2 year follow-up, the control group showed a significant improvement in pain and bi-directional active range of motion during physical assessment and in five out of six domains during Shoulder36 assessment. In contrast, the re-rupture group showed significant differences for only three domains of the Shoulder36 assessment twelve months after surgery. [Conclusion] We confirmed the long-term functional improvement and maintenance in the re-rupture group, suggesting that continued rehabilitation, compensatory movements, and detailed guidance on daily life activities are required for patients after ARCR. Furthermore, Shoulder36 can be useful for assessing the prognosis of patients with and without re-rupture.
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.