ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2025
Efficacy and safety of xenograft augmentation in rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 2025. 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.
- Structural Augmentation in Rotator Cuff Repair Decreases the Risk of Retear: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.The American journal of sports medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair With Autologous Biologic Augmentation Using Biceps Tendon Redirection and Incorporation.Arthroscopy techniques · 2026Article
- Decellularized Extracellular Matrix (dECM) in Tendon Regeneration: A Comprehensive Review.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Review
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
Rotator cuff tears are common disorders that can significantly impact patientś shoulder function and quality of life. Incomplete or failed healing is relatively common following repair of large tendon tears. Xenograft materials are increasingly used for augmentation of repairs, but their efficacy and safety remain under debate. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the outcomes of xenograft-augmented rotator cuff repair in comparison to standard repair techniques. A detailed literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases on September 2, 2023, focusing on studies that utilized xenograft materials in rotator cuff repair. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies (CHS) that reported on dichotomous and continuous outcome measures. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2 (RoB2) for RCTs and the Risk of Bias assessment for non-RCT studies-I tool for nonrandomized studies. Data synthesis was performed using random-effects models to compute odds ratios (ORs) and standardized mean differences. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, including three RCTs and five CHS evaluating xenograft materials, including porcine dermis and small intestine submucosa patches. Meta-analysis of RCT data revealed no statistically significant difference in failure rates between xenograft-augmented and standard repair groups (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.08-2.90;
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.