Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41179475›Full record

ArticleJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2025

The usefulness of orthopedic shoulder surgery randomized controlled trials: are they meeting the key criteria?

Trevon A Jelinek, Cameron M O'Brien, Alec J Young, Griffin K Hughes, Chance K Bratten, Eli T Paul, Matt Vassar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

7 authors.

Trevon A JelinekOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Cameron M O'BrienOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Alec J YoungOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Griffin K HughesOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Chance K BrattenOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Eli T PaulOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Matt VassarOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Shoulder surgery is a significant subset of orthopedic interventions, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are critical for advancing surgical techniques and informing clinical guidelines. However, poorly designed or inadequately reported RCTs make applying findings to clinical practice more difficult. This study applies a usefulness assessment tool developed by van 't Hooft et al to evaluate the utility of shoulder surgery RCTs published in the past 5 years, aiming to identify trends and gaps to improve trial design and reporting. Methods: This study evaluated RCTs on orthopedic shoulder surgery published between January 1, 2019, and October 28, 2024. Using Medline and Embase, articles were screened for inclusion based on predefined criteria. Data extraction focused on general trial characteristics and fulfillment of 13 items within the usefulness criteria. Each criterion was scored from 0 to 2, with a maximum total score of 26. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics for trial characteristics, linear regression models for scores and time, and a correlation analysis between core usefulness and transparency scores. Results: The mean usefulness score was 13.0 of 26, with scores ranging from 6 to 23. Core usefulness scores showed a slight decline over time, while transparency scores exhibited an upward trend, leading to a modest overall increase in combined scores. Transparency items, such as conflict of interest and funding disclosures, were well-reported, while public availability of raw data and trial protocols scored poorly. Core usefulness items like problem base and feasibility were widely achieved, but pragmatism and value for money were frequently unmet. A moderate positive correlation (r = 0.29, Discussion and Conclusion: While transparency improvements have driven slight overall progress in trial quality, substantial gaps remain in key criteria like raw data availability and value for money. The findings highlight the need for journals and researchers to adopt comprehensive strategies to enhance the clinical impact of RCTs. This study underscores the value of structured assessment tools in identifying opportunities to optimize trial design and reporting, ultimately improving evidence-based care in orthopedic shoulder surgery. This study highlights persistent gaps in transparency among shoulder surgery RCTs and suggests that improved reporting, particularly regarding protocol and data availability, may enhance the overall usefulness and reliability of trial findings.

Indexed as

Clinical trial influenceOrthopedic shoulder surgeryTransparencyTrial designTrial reportingTrial usefulnessUsefulness criteria

Identifiers

PMID41179475
PMCPMC12573488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.