ArticleBMJ open2025
Protocol for systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis comparing efficacy and safety of endoscopic versus open gluteal tendon repair.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Endoscopic gluteal tendon repair reduces complication rates while achieving outcomes comparable to open repair: A multilevel meta-analysis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Pooled it
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
backgroundGluteal tendon tears-frequently dubbed the 'rotator cuff tears of the hip'-are a common but often underdiagnosed cause of lateral hip pain and abductor dysfunction, especially in middle-aged to older women. While both open and endoscopic repair techniques are used, current literature suggests similar functional outcomes but higher complication rates following open repair. However, evidence is mainly derived from small retrospective case series, and no randomised trials exist. This systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy, safety and complication profiles of endoscopic versus open gluteal tendon repair.
methodsA comprehensive literature search will be conducted across PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL and Epistemonikos without language or date restrictions. Eligible studies include randomised controlled trials and observational studies reporting on open or endoscopic gluteal tendon repair. Primary outcomes will include pain, functional scores and complication rates. Risk of bias will be assessed using the RoB 2 tool for RCTs and ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies. A three-level random-effects meta-analysis will be performed using inverse variance weighting and Hartung-Knapp adjustments. Heterogeneity will be quantified using the I² statistic. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this secondary analysis of published data. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. TIMELINE AND REVIEW STATUS: The review will commence immediately after acceptance of this study protocol in PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251088765.
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.