ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Early mobilisation versus delayed protocols after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for nonfracture indications: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols on patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction following shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Review
- Early mobilisation versus delayed protocols after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for nonfracture indications: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes, range of motion, pain scores and complication rates between early and delayed mobilisation following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, Ovid Medline and Scopus databases were searched from inception through May 2025. Comparative studies evaluating early versus delayed mobilisation after RTSA were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the modified Coleman Methodology Score, while risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies and the Risk of Bias 2 tool for randomised controlled trials. Pooled outcomes included patient-reported outcome scores, range of motion and postoperative complications. Results: Six studies with a total of 1763 patients were included. All included studies in this review investigated RTSA for nonfracture indications. Methodological quality ranged from fair to excellent across included studies. Meta-analysis showed that early mobilisation was associated with statistically significantly greater improvements in forward flexion (mean difference [MD] of 4.36°), abduction (MD of 4.95°) and pain visual analogue scale scores (MD of -0.40) compared to delayed mobilisation. No statistically significant differences were found between groups in Constant scores, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, external rotation, dislocation rates, or revision surgery. Notably, early mobilisation was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative fractures. Conclusion: Early mobilisation after RTSA may yield modest improvements in pain and shoulder motion, though below established MCID thresholds. Importantly, it was associated with a lower risk of postoperative fractures and did not increase other complications. These findings support the safety of early rehabilitation, while highlighting the limited clinical magnitude of benefit. Level of Evidence: Level III.
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.