Can Distalisation and Lateralisation Shoulder Angles in Reverse Arthroplasty Interfere with the Functional Results in Patients with Rotator Cuff Arthropathy?

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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

1. Measurements of distalization and lateralization do not correlate with patient reported outcome measures following reverse shoulder arthroplasty.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2026
   Article
2. Clinical and radiological outcomes of Inlay versus Onlay humeral stems in reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a 145° neck shaft angle: a multicentre retrospective study with a minimum follow-up of three years, an analysis from the registry of the shoulder friends institute.International orthopaedics · 2026
   Article

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 1 institution in 1 country.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as