ArticleClinics in shoulder and elbow2024
Bilateral reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus bilateral anatomic shoulder arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
Article in Clinics in shoulder and elbow, 2024. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Outcomes of Staged Bilateral Middle Trapezius Transfer for Irreparable Supraspinatus Tendon Tears: A Case Report.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Outcomes of reverseWorld journal of orthopedics · 2026Article
- Bilateral reverse shoulder arthroplasty: functional outcomes and technical considerations.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs the population is aging and indications are expanding, shoulder arthroplasty is becoming more frequent, especially bilateral staged replacement. However, surgeons are hesitant to use bilateral reverse prostheses due to potential limitations on activities of daily living.
methodsThis meta-analysis was conducted to compare bilateral anatomic to bilateral reverse shoulder implants. PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20) were searched until April 2023. The clinical outcomes consisted of postoperative functional scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation [SANE], Physical Component Score [PCS], Mental Component Score, and Simple Shoulder Test), pain, and range of motion (external rotation and forward elevation). Three studies were included in this meta-analysis.
resultsBilateral anatomic implants had better postoperative functional outcomes and range of motion, but no significant difference was seen in postoperative pain when compared to the reverse prosthesis. Better ASES score, SANE score, and PCS as well as better external rotation and forward elevation were seen in the bilateral anatomic shoulder replacement group, but no significant difference in pain levels was seen between the two groups.
conclusionsThe results may be explained by the lower baseline seen in the reverse prosthesis group, which may be due to an older population and different indications. Nevertheless, more randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings. Level of evidence: III.
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.