ReviewShoulder & elbow2024
Can we accelerate rehabilitation following reverse shoulder arthroplasty? A systematic review.
Review in Shoulder & elbow, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Future advances in shoulder arthroplasty surgery.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is no consensus concerning the rehabilitation protocol following reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Several patients are expecting to be able to use their arms for sports or recreation shortly after their operation. Methods: This review was designed as an intervention systematic review with narrative analysis. Authors searched English literature in PubMed and Embase databases from 1/1/1989 until July 2022. Controlled studies comparing rehabilitation protocols for patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty were included. Data quality was examined with the Cochrane risk of a bias assessment tool for randomized trials, the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized studies (MINORS) tool, as well as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: Three studies were finally analyzed. At 3 months post-op, forward flexion was found to be significantly higher in the early rehabilitation group (140.5, 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 135.10-145.89; the delayed rehabilitation group mean was 131.24, 95% CI: 125.73-136.74; Discussion: Newer regimes permit immediate shoulder mobilization but may not be applied to every patient. The lack of strong evidence warrants the need for future controlled studies; subsequently, postoperative rehabilitation should be individualized.
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.