ArticleJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2025
Acceptability of biologic treatments to patients undergoing rotator cuff repair.
Article 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. 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
Background: The objective of this study was to determine the acceptability of biologic treatments for patients undergoing rotator cuff repair. Methods: This is a survey-based analysis of treatment acceptability of patients undergoing rotator cuff repair. Preoperatively, we collected demographics and survey responses. Patients were surveyed using a 5-point Likert scale regarding their willingness to undergo variations on biologic treatments for rotator cuff tears. These variations included frequency of treatment (daily, every other day, and weekly); duration of treatment (1, 3, and 6 months); side effect frequency (10%, 25%, 50%, and 75%); efficacy in terms of increased success rates (10% more, 20% more, and 30% more); and method of administration (injection, oral, and implantable). Descriptive statistical analysis was performed. Results: Fifty-five patients responded to the survey. The cohort was 65% male, with a mean ± standard deviation age of 60 ± 11 years, body mass index of 30 ± 7, and Charlson comorbidity index of 2 ± 1. With regards to frequency of treatment, 73% of patients either strongly agreed or agreed that they were willing to take a pill daily if it would increase the likelihood of success. For injections, 80% of patients either strongly agreed or agreed that they were willing to undergo an injection once, 71% weekly, 76% monthly, and 76% every 3 months. With regards to duration, 76% either strongly agreed or agreed that they were willing to take a medication for 1 month, 64% for 3 months, and 55% for 6 months. With regards to side effects, 47% either strongly agreed or agreed that they were willing to undergo a treatment with 10% side effects, 13% with 25% side effects, 7% with 50% side effects, and 7% with 75% side effects. With regards to efficacy, 73% either strongly agreed or agreed that they were willing to undergo a biologic treatment if it increased their success rates by even 10%. Conclusion: Based upon these survey responses, the biologic treatment options most acceptable to patients would be a pill or injection, administered for up to 3 months after surgery, with fewer than 10% of patients experiencing side effects. Most patients were willing to undergo a biologic treatment even if it only increased their likelihood of success by 10%. Therefore, based on these results, researchers and physicians developing biologic treatments could focus on avenues that only slightly increase success rates and can be administered within 3 months of surgery provided there is a favorable side effect profile.
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.