ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Artificial intelligence applications in the management of musculoskeletal disorders of the shoulder: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advanced systems for intraoperative cartilage evaluation and treatment demonstrate early feasibility and a shift towards integrating artificial intelligence: A scoping review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for postoperative plain radiographic assessment after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: current evidence, clinical readiness, and limitations.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2026Article
- Hierarchical Multimodal Fusion of Multi-Sequence MRI and Clinical Metadata for the Classification of Rotator Cuff Tears.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Quantifying the Contribution of Bone Morphology to Implant Selection in Shoulder Arthroplasty Using CT-Based Deep Learning.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence applications in the management of musculoskeletal disorders of the shoulder: A systematic review.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of the present review is to evaluate and report on the available literature discussing artificial intelligence (AI) applications to the diagnosis of shoulder conditions, outcome prediction of shoulder interventions, and the possible application of such algorithms directly to surgical procedures. Methods: In February 2024, a search of PubMed, Cochrane and Scopus databases was performed. Studies had to evaluate AI model effectiveness for inclusion. Research on healthcare cost predictions, deterministic algorithms, patient satisfaction, protocol studies and upper-extremity fractures not involving the shoulder were excluded. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tools were used to assess bias. Results: Thirty-three studies were included in the analysis. Seven studies analysed the detection of rotator cuff tears (RCTs) in magnetic resonance imaging and found area under the curve (AUC) values ranged from 0.812 to 0.94 for the detection of RCTs. One study reported Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics values ranging from 0.79 to 0.97 for the prediction of clinical outcomes following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. In terms of outcomes of rotator cuff repair, an AUC value ranging from 0.58 to 0.68 was reported for prediction of patient-reported outcome measures, and an AUC range of 0.87-0.92 was found for prediction of retear rate. Five studies evaluated the identification of shoulder implant models following TSA from radiographs, with reported accuracy ranging from 89.90% to 97.20%. Conclusion: AI application enables forecasting of clinical outcomes, permits refined diagnostic evaluation and increases surgical accuracy. While promising, the translation of these technologies into routine clinical practice requires careful consideration. Level of Evidence: Level IV.
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.