ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2025
Correlation between clinical, ultrasonographic and arthroscopic findings of subscapularis tears: A prospective study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of Clinical Examination, Ultrasonography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Arthroscopically Confirmed Partial Subscapularis Tears.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Preoperative clinical and ultrasonographic (USG) diagnosis of subscapularis (SSc) tear has always been challenging, with studies reporting varying diagnostic values of these modalities compared with arthroscopy. This prospective study aimed to report the diagnostic values of clinical tests and ultrasonography for SSc tear and to correlate with respect to arthroscopy. Methodology: Clinical and USG data were collected preoperatively from 144 patients who underwent arthroscopy for rotator cuff tears. Lafosse's classification was used for classifying SSc tear. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy with receiver operating curve (ROC) of clinical tests and USG were statistically analyzed and compared with arthroscopic findings. Results: Among 144 patients, 70 % had subscapularis tear. Gerber's lift-off was the most sensitive and accurate in diagnosing partial thickness tear (72.1 %, 63.3 %) and overall any tear (77.4 %, 76.7 %). Belly-off was the most specific test in detecting partial-thickness tear (61.5 %) and any tear (88.9 %). Bear hug test (BHT) was the most specific (65.9 %) and accurate (69.8 %) for diagnosing a full-thickness tear. ROC analysis showed maximum accuracy with the belly-off for full-thickness tears and Gerber's lift-off for partial-thickness tears. Compared to clinical tests, USG has lower accuracy in detecting partial tears and higher accuracy (81.7 %) for complete tears. Conclusion: The diagnostic performance of all modalities for detecting any tear is ranked as follows: Gerber's Lift-Off, Belly Press, Passive Lift-Off, USG, Belly-Off, and BHT. Results of partial tears were similar. For full-thickness tears: USG, Belly-Off, BHT, Passive Lift-Off, Belly press and Gerber's Lift-Off. Level of study: Level III, Prospective.
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.