ReviewJournal of orthopaedics2024
Advancements in the diagnosis and management of rotator cuff tears. The role of artificial intelligence.
Review in Journal of orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Patient-Level Classification of Rotator Cuff Tears on Shoulder MRI Using an Explainable Vision Transformer Framework.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in shoulder and elbow surgery: a bibliometric analysis of affiliation-based collaboration patterns.JSES international · 2026Review
- Article
- Diagnosis of SLAP lesions on shoulder MRI using a 2.5D deep learning and ensemble learning framework.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Review
- Advances in Shoulder Pain Imaging: A Narrative Review of Current Practice and Emerging Trends.Current medical imaging · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Rotator Cuff Tear Detection: A Systematic Review of MRI-Based Models.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This review examined the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in the diagnosis and management of rotator cuff tears (RCTs). Methods: A literature search was conducted in October 2023 using PubMed (MEDLINE), SCOPUS, and EMBASE databases, included only peer-reviewed studies. Relevant articles on AI technology in RCTs. A critical analysis of the relevant literature was conducted. Results: AI is transforming RCTs management through faster and more precise identification and assessment using algorithms that facilitate segmentation, quantification, and classification of the RCTs across various imaging modalities. Precise algorithms focusing on preoperative factors to assess RCTs reparability have been developed for personalized treatment planning and outcome prediction. AI also aids in exercise classification and promotes patient adherence during at-home physiotherapy. Despite promising advancements, challenges in data quality and symptom integration persist. Future research should include refining AI algorithms, expanding their integration into various imaging techniques, and exploring their roles in postoperative care and surgical decision-making. Conclusions: AI-driven solutions improve diagnostic accuracy and have the potential to influence treatment planning and postoperative outcomes through the automated RCTs analysis of medical imaging. Integration of high-quality datasets and clinical symptoms into AI models can enhance their reliability. Current AI algorithms can also be refined, integrated into other imaging techniques, and explored further in surgical decision-making and postoperative care.
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.