Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39440278›Full record

ReviewJB & JS open access

Disparities in Rotator Cuff Tear Progression Definitions and Rates: A Systematic Review.

Mason J Garcia, Daniela Caro, Maria Velasquez Hammerle, Juan B Villarreal, Joseph P DeAngelis, Arun J Ramappa, Ara Nazarian

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Mason J GarciaMusculoskeletal Translational Innovation Initiative, Carl J. Shapiro Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4338-6391
Daniela CaroMusculoskeletal Translational Innovation Initiative, Carl J. Shapiro Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2903-4928
Maria Velasquez HammerleMusculoskeletal Translational Innovation Initiative, Carl J. Shapiro Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6457-9248
Juan B VillarrealMusculoskeletal Translational Innovation Initiative, Carl J. Shapiro Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-8272-592X
Joseph P DeAngelisCarl J. Shapiro Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6617-9697
Arun J RamappaCarl J. Shapiro Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ara NazarianMusculoskeletal Translational Innovation Initiative, Carl J. Shapiro Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3992-3489

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: While rotator cuff tears are prevalent in the general population, the natural history of this disease is unclear. Understanding rotator cuff tear progression is crucial for refining surgical indications and evaluating the necessity of early interventions. This study presents an in-depth analysis of the existing literature on the definitions and progression rates of rotator cuff tears, aiming to enhance clinical decision making and patient outcomes. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, using Medline (PubMed), Embase (Elsevier), and Web of Science databases on January 12, 2023. Articles were identified as relevant to the natural history and progression of asymptomatic and symptomatic partial-thickness (PT) and full-thickness (FT) rotator cuff tears. Those written in English reporting rotator cuff progression rates of tears in adults, based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or ultrasound, were included. After reviewing the articles, the data on the rates of tear progression and associated risk factors were extracted, compiled, and analyzed. The risk of bias was determined using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Twenty-one articles met the inclusion criteria, with 1,831 tears included. The progression rate for all partial thickness tears was 26.7% ± 12.8% at an average follow-up of 2.2 ± 0.9 years, with 5 definitions for tear progression. For FT tears, the progression rate was 54.9% ± 18.6% at a follow-up time of 3.0 ± 2.0 years, with 8 definitions for tear enlargement. A significant difference (p < 0.0001) was found between the progression rates of PT and FT tears. Patients who were initially asymptomatic and became symptomatic had higher progression rates (33%-63%) than those who remained asymptomatic (4%-38%). Conclusion: Further research would benefit by identifying a clinically relevant and standardized definition of rotator cuff tear progression, to describe the natural history of rotator cuff disease, making results more comparable and optimizing treatment planning. Level of Evidence: Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Identifiers

PMID39440278
PMCPMC11495754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.