ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2026
Treatment of isolated greater tuberosity fractures: a scoping review.
Review in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Treatment of isolated greater tuberosity fractures: a scoping review.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There are no evidence-based guidelines to support the management of isolated greater tuberosity fractures. While the choice between nonoperative and operative treatment is generally based on the degree of fracture displacement, the definition of an acceptable displacement continues to be debated. Consequently, the ideal management of these fractures can be a therapeutic challenge. The objective of this study was to create an overview of the literature investigating the treatment of isolated greater tuberosity fractures. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension guidelines for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL were systematically searched from inception to September 29, 2024. Original studies investigating the treatment of isolated greater tuberosity fractures were eligible for inclusion. Screening of studies was independently performed by 3 reviewers. Data items were extracted using a standardized charting form. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed by 2 independent reviewers using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Results: 3.788 records were identified in the search, 296 were retrieved for full-text screening, of which 59 were included. No randomized controlled trials were identified. 88% of the included studies were retrospective and 98% had a moderate or high risk of bias. Most of the included studies investigated operative treatment of displaced fractures (defined as >5 mm) in patient populations with a mean age between 40 and 60 years. Few studies investigated nonoperative treatment and treatment in young (<40 years) or elderly (>60 years) patients. Detailed fracture characteristics were not consistently reported. Accordingly, the size of the fragment was reported in 8% of the included studies, fractures were subclassified into avulsion, split or depression type in 29% of the included studies, and the direction of fragment displacement was reported in 34% of the included studies. Conclusion: The literature regarding the treatment of isolated greater tuberosity fractures is comprised of studies with a moderate to high risk of bias and a lack of randomized controlled trials. A 5 mm fracture displacement threshold is often used to guide treatment, though it has not been validated in clinical studies. High-quality studies are needed to establish evidence-based guidelines and improve clinical decision-making.
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.