ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Retrospective, single-centre analysis comparing clinical outcomes of reverse total shoulder replacement for fracture, degenerative changes and revision procedure.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundReverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is a widely used treatment for both traumatic and degenerative glenohumeral joint diseases. Despite its popularity, data on outcomes sorted according to indications have revealed inconsistent results. Furthermore, the clinical outcome is rarely analysed in a differentiated manner using several scores. This retrospective, single-center study aimed to investigate the impact of indications on the clinical outcomes of RTSA.
methodsThe Constant Score, EQ-5D-5L, DASH Score were sent by post to 263 patients who received a RTSA between February 2011 and March 2022. The follow-up period was 12-139 months. Patients were categorized into primary-fracture, secondary-intervention, and degenerative-disease groups based on the indications for RTSA. We have calculated the corresponding average scores for each group.
resultsOf the 263 patients included in the study, 136 completed the questionnaire. The mean follow-up duration was 48 months. All outcome measures were approximately normally distributed. The mean values were as follows. Constant Score: degenerative disease 58 ± 19, primary fracture 52 ± 18, secondary intervention 49 ± 18. DASH Score: degenerative disease 35 ± 20, primary fracture 40 ± 17, secondary intervention 42 ± 20. EQ-5D-5L Index: degenerative disease 0.72 ± 0.24, primary fracture 0.75 ± 0.20, secondary intervention 0.68 ± 0.39.
conclusionsIn this study, clinical outcomes after RTSA varied according to the underlying indication, with the best results observed in patients with degenerative diseases and the lowest in patients undergoing secondary interventions. Further studies with larger, multi-centre cohorts are needed to confirm these findings and to strengthen the evidence base before clinical recommendations can be made.
trial registration593/21ek.
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.