ArticleJSES international2025
Biceps tendon augmentation in arthroscopic partial repair of irreparable massive rotator cuff tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in JSES international, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There remains debate as to whether augmentation of large and massive irreparable rotator cuff tears (MIRCTs) with long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) in the setting of arthroscopic partial repair (PR) confers a clinical benefit. The purpose of the current study was to synthesize population-level data from the current literature to determine whether LHBT augmentation for PR of MIRCTs reduces the incidence of re-tears and improves clinical outcomes compared with PR alone. Methods: The PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, OVID, and Cochrane Libraries were queried in April 2024 for trials directly comparing PR with PR with LHBT augmentation for MIRCTs. Information pertaining to diagnostic imaging indices (Goutallier grades), patient-reported outcome measures, range of motion, and adverse events (re-tear rate, reoperations, complications, conversion to arthroplasty) were recorded when reported. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models were constructed to quantify effect estimates for categorical and continuous outcomes, represented as pooled incidence and standardized mean differences with associated confidence estimates, respectively. Results: Six studies encompassing the outcomes of 367 patients (PR: n = 188, 51.2%; PR + LHBT: n = 179, 48.8%) were included. The mean age and follow-up among included studies ranged from 59.5-69.3 years and 20.5-39.9 months, respectively. The pooled incidence of re-tears was lower in the PR with LHBT augmentation group compared with PR alone, but not statistically significant (38% vs. 52%, Conclusion: Among patients undergoing arthroscopic PR of MIRCTs, LHBT augmentation did not result in superior clinical outcomes compared with PR alone. Although the 14% reduction in the incidence of re-tears observed with LHBT augmentation was not statistically significant, it may represent a clinically important difference.
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.