ArticleJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2023
Patient-reported outcome tools and baseline scores vary by country and region for arthroscopic repair of massive rotator cuff tears: a systematic review.
Article in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 2023. 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.
- Relevant treatment outcomes for individuals aged 60 and older with massive rotator cuff tears: a qualitative study with 16 patients.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Article
- Double-row suture-bridge technique does not yield better clinical and radiological results than single-row technique in patients older than 55 years at 2 years minimum follow-up: A comparative study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Factors associated with subjective shoulder function preoperatively and postoperatively after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.JSES international · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Different patient-reported outcome (PRO) tools are used in patients with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) which complicates outcome comparisons. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare PRO usage and baseline scores across world regions and countries in patients with ARCR of massive rotator cuff tears (MRCT). Methods: A systematic review was performed on ARCR for MRCT. The search was conducted from September to November of 2022 using the MEDLINE database for articles published in the last 15 years. Thirty-seven articles were included after initial screening and full-text review. In each article, PRO usage, baseline scores, and country of origin were collected. PRO usage was reported in percentages and baseline scores were normalized for each region to facilitate comparisons. Normalization was performed using the PRO means from each article. These averages were converted to fractions using the worst and best possible scores. These were combined into a single numerical value, expressed as a decimal from 0 to 1, using the total sample size for each tool per region. Values closer to 0 represent worse functional outcomes. Results: Thirty-two percent (n = 12) of articles were from Asia, 43.2% (n = 16) from Europe, 5.4% (n = 2) from the Middle East, and 18.9% (n = 7) from North America. The most commonly reported PRO tools were American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) in 19 papers, Constant-Murley Score (CMS) in 26 papers, Visual Analog Scale for pain (VAS) in 19 papers, and University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA) in 11 papers. ASES was reported in 51% of articles with 63% being from Asia (n = 12) compared to 21% from North America (n = 4). CMS was reported in 70% of studies with 58% being from Europe. Upon normalization, the preoperative score ranged from 0.30 to 0.44. Europe (0.39), and North America (0.40) showed similar scores. The lowest and highest scores were seen in the Middle East (0.3) and Asia (0.44) respectively. Conclusion: There is no standardized method to report outcomes in patients undergoing ARCR for MRCT. Great variation in usage exists in PROs which complicates data comparison between world regions. With normalization, baseline scores where similar among Asia, North America, and Europe, and lowest in the Middle East.
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.