ReviewArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2025
Indications for Biceps Tenodesis in Injured Overhead Throwing Athletes Lack Consensus: A Systematic Review and Cross-Sectional Survey.
Review in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2025. 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
Purpose: To evaluate the current clinical practice methods and the reported indications for biceps tenodesis in injured overhead throwing athletes. Methods: This study combined a survey of experienced shoulder surgeons regarding their methods of establishing indications for tenodesis surgery with a systematic review of studies that reported performing biceps tenodesis in overhead throwing athletes. Both the survey and review were designed to identify methods of making the diagnosis to delineate the preoperative and intraoperative factors used to establish biceps involvement as a major component of the clinical presentation, as well as to attempt to establish a consensus for clinical practice. Results: Eleven studies reporting on 249 overhead throwing athletes were analyzed. Elements of the history evaluation were described in 5 studies; physical examination, in 2 studies; advanced imaging, in 7 studies; and diagnostic arthroscopy, in 8 studies. One hundred nineteen responses to the survey showed a similar thought process regarding the reasoning to include biceps tenodesis, but several aspects of the process appeared to not be supported by contemporary literature. Also, there was inconsistent use of diagnostic components, with only 3 of 9 history components and 4 of 9 physical examination components being selected by more than 50% of the respondents. Conclusions: The survey revealed there was an incompletely supported reasoning process regarding indications for tenodesis and there was no consensus regarding individual components of the history or physical examination. The literature review revealed a lack of consensus regarding which elements of the diagnostic process are integral in establishing biceps involvement in injured throwing shoulders. Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies and cross-sectional survey.
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.