ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2024
Initial clinical experience with a predictive clinical decision support tool for anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The implementation of artificial intelligence in upper extremity surgery: a systematic review.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Pooled it
- Quantifying the Contribution of Bone Morphology to Implant Selection in Shoulder Arthroplasty Using CT-Based Deep Learning.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in shoulder and elbow surgery: a bibliometric analysis of affiliation-based collaboration patterns.JSES international · 2026Review
- Radiomic analysis of the deltoid and scapula: identification of computed tomography-image based measurements predictive of pain, motion, and function before and after shoulder arthroplasty.JSES international · 2025Article
- Assessing the accuracy of a machine learning prediction for 2 different shoulder prostheses: an external validation study.JSES international · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence applications in the management of musculoskeletal disorders of the shoulder: A systematic review.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
- Impact of Deltoid Computer Tomography Image Data on the Accuracy of Machine Learning Predictions of Clinical Outcomes after Anatomic and Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Predicting patient reported outcome measures: a scoping review for the artificial intelligence-guided patient preference predictor.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 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
13 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeClinical decision support tools (CDSTs) are software that generate patient-specific assessments that can be used to better inform healthcare provider decision making. Machine learning (ML)-based CDSTs have recently been developed for anatomic (aTSA) and reverse (rTSA) total shoulder arthroplasty to facilitate more data-driven, evidence-based decision making. Using this shoulder CDST as an example, this external validation study provides an overview of how ML-based algorithms are developed and discusses the limitations of these tools.
methodsAn external validation for a novel CDST was conducted on 243 patients (120F/123M) who received a personalized prediction prior to surgery and had short-term clinical follow-up from 3 months to 2 years after primary aTSA (n = 43) or rTSA (n = 200). The outcome score and active range of motion predictions were compared to each patient's actual result at each timepoint, with the accuracy quantified by the mean absolute error (MAE).
resultsThe results of this external validation demonstrate the CDST accuracy to be similar (within 10%) or better than the MAEs from the published internal validation. A few predictive models were observed to have substantially lower MAEs than the internal validation, specifically, Constant (31.6% better), active abduction (22.5% better), global shoulder function (20.0% better), active external rotation (19.0% better), and active forward elevation (16.2% better), which is encouraging; however, the sample size was small.
conclusionA greater understanding of the limitations of ML-based CDSTs will facilitate more responsible use and build trust and confidence, potentially leading to greater adoption. As CDSTs evolve, we anticipate greater shared decision making between the patient and surgeon with the aim of achieving even better outcomes and greater levels of patient satisfaction.
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.