Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41002287›Full record

SynthesisOrthopaedic surgery2025

Efficacy of Conservative Approaches on Pain Relief and Function in Patients With Rotator Cuff Calcific Tendinopathy: Which Is the Best Option? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Lucrezia Moggio, Nicola Marotta, Alessandro de Sire, Giorgia Lucia Benedetto, Giorgio Gasparini, Antonio Ammendolia, Elvira Immacolata Parrotta, Michele Mercurio

Abstract readNetwork Meta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Orthopaedic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Lucrezia MoggioRehabilitation Unit, Ospedale Degli Infermi, Biella, Italy.
Nicola MarottaResearch Center on Musculoskeletal Health, MusculoSkeletalHealthatUMG, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5568-7909
Alessandro de SireResearch Center on Musculoskeletal Health, MusculoSkeletalHealthatUMG, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy.
Giorgia Lucia BenedettoStem Cell Laboratory, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy.
Giorgio GaspariniResearch Center on Musculoskeletal Health, MusculoSkeletalHealthatUMG, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy.
Antonio AmmendoliaResearch Center on Musculoskeletal Health, MusculoSkeletalHealthatUMG, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy.
Elvira Immacolata ParrottaStem Cell Laboratory, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8145-3623
Michele MercurioResearch Center on Musculoskeletal Health, MusculoSkeletalHealthatUMG, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8742-5612

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveRotator cuff calcific tendinopathy is a leading cause of nontraumatic shoulder pain, frequently leading to articular and functional impairments, depicting an adhesive capsulitis-like clinical presentation. To date, there is a lack of evidence on the impact of conservative approaches, and no gold standard has been established for managing rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy. This systematic review aimed to identify the most effective conservative approach for reducing pain and improving function in rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy patients.

methodsPubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched from their inception until January 2, 2025, for English-language randomized clinical trials including adults affected by rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy undergoing conservative treatment. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers using a customized data extraction form, with consensus reached by a third reviewer. A network meta-analysis was subsequently carried out to compare the efficacy of different interventions. The risk of bias within the included randomized clinical trials was assessed using Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The study has been registered with PROSPERO, registration number CRD420250650833.

resultsNineteen articles were included. This study identified 1160 subjects affected by rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy. A pairwise comparison through a network meta-analysis indicated that platelet-rich plasma exhibited the highest probability (85%) of improving shoulder function, followed by disodium ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid at 75%, aspiration techniques at 65%, and extracorporeal shockwave therapy at 57%. Regarding pain reduction, disodium ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid showed the highest probability (66%), followed by kinesiotaping and needle aspiration, both at 61%.

conclusionThis systematic review and network meta-analysis identified several interventional techniques, including platelet-rich plasma and disodium ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid injections, extracorporeal shockwave therapy, and needle aspiration, as more effective strategies for reducing pain and improving function in subjects affected by rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I (systematic review of Level-I randomized controlled studies).

Indexed as

CalcinosisConservative TreatmentPain ManagementShoulder PainTendinopathyHumansPlatelet-Rich PlasmaRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRotator Cuffbursectomyextracorporeal shockwaves therapyrehabilitationrotator cuff calcific tendinopathyshoulder pain

Identifiers

PMID41002287
PMCPMC12580237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.