ArticleEFORT open reviews2025
Recovery pattern in the early postoperative period after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a systematic review.
Article in EFORT open reviews, 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.
- Dual-Task Training Improves Shoulder Function and is Associated with Changes in Sensorimotor Network Connectivity After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Sports medicine - open · 2026Article
- Association between in-hospital nursing workload and early functional recovery after unilateral arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the time taken to recover from arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) in terms of pain and function, and to determine if there is an association with the size of the tear. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. The recovery pattern of clinical outcomes and range of motion (ROM) was reported narratively. The percentage of the total improvement at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year was defined as the recovery rate (%) at each time point. The 2-year score was considered 100% recovery. Subgroup analysis based on tear size was performed. Results: In total, 28 studies were included in this systematic review. Visual analog scale (VAS) pain score showed over 50% recovery at 3 months, while other clinical scores reached this threshold by 6 months. At 1 year, all clinical scores showed approximately 85% recovery. ROM worsened or showed minimal improvement at 3 months and significant improvement by 6 months or 1 year after ARCR. Tear size did not significantly affect clinical scores at any follow-up period (all P > 0.05). Conclusion: All clinical scores including VAS pain score showed significant improvement at 3 or 6 months after ARCR. Especially, recovery of VAS pain score was faster compared to other clinical scores up to 6 months. ROM recovery slowly started at 6 months after ARCR. Recovery pattern was not different according to the tear size. It can give patients a better understanding of recovery after the operation.
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.