ArticleJSES international2025
Comparisons of surgeon and patient prediction of 1-year outcomes following rotator cuff surgery.
Article in JSES international, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Preoperative patient expectations are thought to be predictors of outcomes in rotator cuff repair (RCR) surgery; however, these expectations lack an objective component. Surgeons are thought to possess the ability to more accurately predict postoperative patient outcomes compared to patients themselves. Surgeon's predictions of outcome could potentially serve to set realistic patient expectations of surgery and thus optimize surgical outcomes. The objective of this study was to describe patient and surgeon predictions of outcomes in those undergoing RCR surgery and determine the degree of agreement between these predictions and actual 1-year postoperative outcomes. Methods: Data for this study were collected in a health-care registry as standard of care for all patients undergoing RCR from January 1 to December 31, 2022, at a single surgical center. Surgeries were conducted by fellowship-trained upper extremity surgeons. The primary outcome was the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score which required a written response by the patient to the question, "How would you rate your affected shoulder today as a percentage of normal (0%-100% with 100% being normal)?". Preoperatively, patients completed their current SANE score and the SANE score they predicted to have at 1-year postoperatively. The surgeon was asked to predict the patient's 1-year SANE score immediately following completion of the surgery. A repeated-measures analysis of variance compared surgeon-predicted, patient-predicted, and actual mean 1-year postoperative SANE. Tukey's post hoc test was used to adjust for pairwise comparisons. The differences between actual and surgeon predicted SANE and actual and patient predicted SANE were calculated. "Accurate prediction" was defined a priori as a difference being within ± 5% of the actual SANE. Significance level was set to Results: Sixty-nine patients were included in this study with a mean age of 60.9 (standard deviation [SD] = 6.9) years and 77% (N = 53) were male. Surgeon-predicted 1-year postoperative SANE was 77.6% (min = 60%; max = 95%; SD = 6.8%), patient-predicted was 88.7% (min = 50%; max = 100%; SD = 11.1%), and actual SANE was 80.6% (min = 8%; max = 100%; SD = 19%) ( Conclusion: On average, surgeons were better able to predict outcomes compared to patients. Patients tended to overestimate their outcomes, while surgeons tended to underestimate patient outcomes. These findings raise the importance of preoperative patient counselling to set more realistic expectations that would potentially improve their achieved outcomes.
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.