ArticleJoint diseases and related surgery2024
Magnetic resonance imaging based coracoid process morphology and its associations with isolated subscapularis tendon tears in Chinese patients.
Article in Joint diseases and related surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Which radiological parameters of the coracoid process influence the diagnosis of atraumatic subscapularis tears? Systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Pooled it
- Which MRI signs truly predict subscapularis tears? A multivariate analysis of 278 arthroscopic cases.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Advances in Shoulder Pain Imaging: A Narrative Review of Current Practice and Emerging Trends.Current medical imaging · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to assess the association between isolated subscapularis tears and coracoid morphology using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to calculate the optimal cut-off values of the significant predictor to predict subscapularis tears. PATIENTS AND
methodsBetween January 2018 and December 2022, a total of 60 patients (29 males, 31 females; mean age: 58.4±8.4 years; range, 18 to 80 years) diagnosed with subscapularis tendon tears who were treated as Group A and 60 patients (29 males, 31 females; mean age: 46.8±11.5 years; range, 18 to 80 years) without subscapularis tendon tears who were treated as Group B were included. Axial coracoid-humeral distance (aCHD), sagittal coracoid-humeral distance (sCHD), coracoid overlap (CO) and coracoid angle (CA) of all patients were measured. Logistic regression was used to investigate the association between subscapularis tears as variables including aCHD, sCHD, CO and CA. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the diagnostic values of coracoid morphology for subscapularis tears.
resultsThe mean values of CO, aCHD and sCHD in Group A were 22.16 mm, 5.13 mm, and 5.56 mm, respectively. The mean values in Group B were 16.99 mm, 7.18 mm, and 7.29 mm, respectively. The degree of CA in Group A was 95.81 and 111.69 in Group B. The differences in the above measurement values were significant between two Groups. The CO was found to be associated with higher odds of subscapularis tears. The optimal cut-off value of CO was 19.79 mm.
conclusionBased on our study results, CO is positively associated with isolated subscapularis tears. In addition, coracoid bursa effusion, cysts in the lesser tuberosity or a tear and malposition of long head of the biceps tendon on MRI may predict the presence of a clinically significant subscapularis tear.
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.