ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021
A Historical Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Management of Pain in Rotator Cuff Tears.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of alpha-tocopherol and OTR-4131 on muscle degeneration after rotator cuff tear in rats: An experimental protocol.World journal of methodology · 2025Article
- Comparison of the Effects of Ultrasound-Guided Subacromial Injection Versus Subacromial Injection and Suprascapular Nerve Block on Pain, Function, and Sleep Quality in Rotator Cuff Lesions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- The Role of Humeral Neck-Shaft Angle in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: 155° versus <155°—A Systematic ReviewJournal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Medialized versus Lateralized Center of Rotation in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this analysis was to assess the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relating to pain management in rotator cuff (RC) tears. This review evaluated the quality of the studies in the literature regarding this topic through the use of some factors and trends. The online databases used to search all RCTs on the topic of RC surgery were Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. This research was completed in September 2020. To assess the quality of reports, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and the modified Coleman methodology score (MCMS) were used. From the research, 262 articles emerged. Finally, 79 studies were included in this historical analysis. There were no statistically significant changes in MCMS across trials that included or did not include a CONSORT diagram (
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.