SynthesisJBJS reviews2024
Choice of Acromioclavicular Dislocation Treatment Should Not Be Influenced by Risk of Development of Acromioclavicular Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in JBJS reviews, 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
backgroundIt is currently unknown to what degree surgical or nonoperative treatment of acromioclavicular (AC) dislocation influences the development of osteoarthritis (OA). The aim of this study was to evaluate AC OA after surgical and nonoperative treatment for AC dislocations, compare OA prevalence between treatment options, and compare OA prevalence between the injured and contralateral shoulder.
methodsArticles reporting on the prevalence of OA after surgical or nonoperative treatment of an AC dislocation with a minimal 2-year follow-up were included. AC OA presence was extracted for the injured and contralateral shoulder. Treatment categories were defined based on anatomical variation in the reattachment of ligaments: AC fixation, coracoclavicular (CC) fixation, AC and CC fixation, Bosworth screw synthetic graft, tendon graft, and conservative. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria.
resultsNinety-four articles were included for qualitative analysis, and 7 articles were included for meta-analysis (n = 3,812; follow-up = 2.0-24.2 years; mean age 37.6 ± 10.4 years). A total of 3,483 patients underwent surgical treatment, and 329 patients underwent conservative treatment. OA prevalence ranged from 6.7%-29.3% between 7 pooled treatment categories. Most included studies had a follow-up <10 years (94%) and OA prevalence increased with time, regardless of treatment option. There was no difference in OA prevalence between the injured and contralateral shoulder (p = 0.120). MINORS scores were varied, ranging from poor to very good.
conclusionThe pooled AC OA prevalence of the 7 treatment categories ranged from 6.7% for the CC fixation surgical group to 29.3% for the conservative treatment group. However, the included studies were predominantly of low quality and had varying follow-up periods, with most having relatively short follow-up durations. No difference in AC OA prevalence was found between the injured and contralateral shoulder. Based on the available evidence, treatment choice for AC dislocation should not be influenced by the potential development of AC AO. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.