ReviewCureus2026
Return to Sport After Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Scoping Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This scoping review synthesized existing literature on return-to-sport (RTS) protocols and testing criteria following total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) to identify gaps in evidence-based practice and inform future research priorities for clinicians. A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar from January 2015 to September 2025, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Inclusion criteria comprised studies involving adults who underwent TSA and reported RTS protocols or testing criteria. Twenty-three studies published between January 2015 and September 2025 met the inclusion criteria. RTS rates were high (85.1% overall, 72.3% at equivalent or improved levels), with anatomical TSA (aTSA) demonstrating superior rates (92.6%) compared to hemiarthroplasty (HSA; 71.1%) or reverse TSA (rTSA; 74.9%). Average return time ranged from four to nine months across sports. However, objective testing criteria for clearance were notably absent. Most studies relied on time-based restrictions and subjective physician assessment without standardized measurement protocols or operational definitions for range of motion (ROM) and strength requirements. Despite encouraging RTS rates, a significant gap exists between successful outcomes and available evidence-based clearance criteria. Current protocols rely on arbitrary time-based restrictions rather than objective functional measures. Critical deficiencies include the absence of standardized strength testing, sport-specific assessments, validated outcome measures, and long-term implant survival data.
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.