ReviewActa ortopedica brasileira2024
RANGE OF MOTION AFTER BONE BLOCK PROCEDURES FOR SHOULDER INSTABILITY: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW.
Review in Acta ortopedica brasileira, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: to determine the surgical indications for glenoid bone grafting associated with better postoperative ranges of motion. Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA. The included studies were subdivided according to the criteria used to indicate glenoid bone graft surgery: group for radiological indications only (Group R), group for radiological indications associated with clinical indications (Group R + C), and group for arthroscopic indications (Group A). The extracted and evaluated data were the range of motion of the shoulder. Results: in the electronic search conducted in October 2022, 1567 articles were selected. After applying the inclusion criteria, 14 articles were selected for the systematic review. Regarding the ranges of motion, group A had the highest number of statistically positive results together with group R. Group A showed positive results in elevation parameters, loss of lateral rotation in adduction, and medial rotation in abduction. Group R showed positive results in lateral rotation in adduction and loss of lateral rotation in adduction. On the other hand, Group R + C was the one that presented the highest number of statistically negative results, in the following parameters: elevation, lateral rotation in abduction, loss of lateral rotation in adduction, and medial rotation in abduction. Conclusion: the subgroups presented variable results in the evaluated parameters; however, the groups with arthroscopic and radiological indications showed the highest number of positive results, with the latter group showing the best results regarding lateral rotation.
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.