SynthesisRevista de la Facultad de Ciencias Medicas (Cordoba, Argentina)2023
[Single-row versus double-row arthroscopic repair in the treatment of rotator cuff tears. A systematic review.]
Synthesis in Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Medicas (Cordoba, Argentina), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic review of the scientific literature to compare single and double row techniques for rotator cuff tears in terms of functional, pain improvement and structural healing of the tendon. Methods: In order to carry out the research, a systematic selection of scientific articles has been made by consulting PubMed and The Cochrane Library databases. The articles included in the present study compare the single-row and double-row techniques, with publication date between 2016 and 2021. Results: Diverse results are observed in the UCLA, SST, Constant and ASES assessment scales and in the range of mobility, therefore, the superiority of one technique in terms of functional results is not established. The double row technique may show superiority in the strength variable, although there is a methodological variability in its measurement. The double-row technique may be related to more intense postoperative pain, while the single-row technique to residual shoulder pain. However, the variables strength and pain show non-homogeneous or coincident data. The superiority of the double row repair in the structural healing of the tendon and a lower re-tear rate than the single row technique is established with statistically significant results, being the most homogeneous and coincident studies.
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.