ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2022
Comparing Sex-Specific Outcomes After Rotator Cuff Repair: A Meta-analysis.
Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2022. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic Factors for Repair Integrity After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Review
- Trends of shoulder arthroplasty and rotator cuff repair in Japan: national database analysis.JSES international · 2025Article
- Rates of retear following rotator cuff repair are similar between men and women.JSES international · 2025Article
- 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
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rotator cuff repair (RCR) is a well-studied procedure. However, the impact of patient sex on outcomes after RCR has not been well studied. Purpose: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of sex-based differences in outcomes after RCR and to record what proportion of studies examined this as a primary or secondary purpose. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review was performed using multiple databases according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies were included if they were written in English, performed on humans, consisted of patients who underwent RCR, evaluated at least 1 of the selected outcomes based on patient sex, and had statistical analysis available for their sex-based claim. Excluded were case reports, review studies, systematic reviews, cadaveric studies, and studies that did not report at least 1 sex-specific outcome or included certain other injuries associated with a rotator cuff injury. Results: Of 9998 studies screened and 1283 full-text studies reviewed, 11 (0.11%) studies with 2860 patients (1549 male and 1329 female) were included for quantitative analysis. None of these 11 studies examined the impact of patient sex on outcomes after RCR as a primary outcome. Postoperative Constant-Murley scores were analyzed for 7 studies. Male patients had a postoperative Constant-Murley score of 76.77 ± 15.94, while female patients had a postoperative Constant-Murley score of 69.88 ± 17.02. The random-effects model showed that male patients had significantly higher scores than female patients, with a mean difference of 7.33 (95% CI, 5.21-9.46; Conclusion: Female patients had lower postoperative Constant-Murley scores compared with male patients, but there was no difference in the retear rate. However, these results were based on an analysis of only 11 studies. The paucity of studies examining the impact of sex suggests that more research is needed on the impact of patient sex on outcomes after RCR.
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.