ReviewCureus2025
Biceps Tendon Rupture: Contemporary Evidence, Evolving Techniques, and a Mechanics-to-Management Clinical Framework.
Review in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biceps tendon rupture represents a spectrum of injuries ranging from the degenerative attrition of the long head proximally to acute mechanical failure of the distal insertion. This review synthesises contemporary evidence on anatomy, biomechanics, diagnostic strategies, operative and non-operative management, and long-term outcomes. Proximal ruptures typically occur in hypovascular, degenerative tissue and often coexist with rotator-cuff pathology, whereas distal ruptures result from sudden eccentric overload and produce significant supination and flexion deficits. Diagnosis relies on clinical examination supported by ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) when chronicity or partial tearing is suspected. Management strategies vary by location: proximal ruptures often respond well to tenotomy or tenodesis depending on patient preference, while distal ruptures generally require anatomic repair or graft reconstruction when delayed. Surgical outcomes are excellent when anatomic footprint restoration and proper tensioning are achieved; complications are uncommon and usually transient. Future directions include biologically active fixation, improved imaging biomarkers, and value-based surgical decision-making. Understanding the mechanical and biological differences between proximal and distal biceps pathology remains central to guiding personalised treatment.
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.