Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41242341›Full record

ArticleBone & joint open2025

Rotator cuff surgery and semantics : definitions matter.

Lars E Adolfsson, Simon M Lambert, Hanna C Björnsson Hallgren

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bone & joint open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

3 authors.

Lars E AdolfssonDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery Linköping University Hospital, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden.
Simon M LambertThe Princess Grace Hospital, London, UK.
Hanna C Björnsson HallgrenDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery Linköping University Hospital, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The imprecise definition of terms used to describe pathological diagnosis in clinical medicine can lead to imprecise treatment concepts and inaccurate recording of outcomes. In this article, we explore the meaning of common terms applied to the pathology of the rotator cuff, and demonstrate how the imprecise use of words entails a risk of leading to a poor definition of the clinical condition being treated. We suggest improvements in the accuracy of the definition of what constitutes the rotator cuff. We suggest the use of 'defect' to describe the most common presentation of a degenerative lesion of the rotator cuff, rather than perpetuate the use of the term 'tear', which has a different, injurious aetiology. We suggest that the term 'repair' should be reserved for the condition in which an acutely injured tendon (with a 'tear') can be expected to heal, using the correct definition of the term 'to heal'. We recommend reserving the use of the term 'healed' for the condition of an acute lesion of the rotator cuff (a 'tear') to which the histological process of regenerating a near-normal enthesis can be reasonably applied. We further suggest that degenerative lesions ('defects') of the rotator cuff, which do not have the biological capacity to heal in the true sense when brought back to bone, should be described as having 'closure' of the defect.

Identifiers

PMID41242341
PMCPMC12620035

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.