ArticleCureus2026
The Templating Software Spectrum: Unveiling Variations in the 3D Assessment of Glenoid Morphology in Shoulder Arthroplasty Planning.
Article 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography planning improves preoperative quantification of glenoid morphology when planning total shoulder arthroplasty, but measurement reliability across commonly used planning platforms remains uncertain. Methods A retrospective within-subject comparison of 30 shoulders was planned on four systems: Stryker Blueprint (BP), Zimmer Signature (ZS), Exactech Equinoxe (EE), and SurgiCase Materialise (MS). Measurements of retroversion and inclination were analysed to evaluate measurement variability and correlations between systems. Results Retroversion medians (IQR) were BP -6.5 (10.75), ZS -6.0 (7.0), EE -5.5 (7.0), and MS -3.5 (19.5); overall p=0.37. MS showed greater dispersion and weak correlations with other systems (ρ≈0.03-0.07). Inclination means (SD) were BP 5.93 (8.13), ZS 1.28 (7.27), EE 3.53 (7.57), MS 6.00 (5.07); overall p<0.001. All paired contrasts were significant except for BP vs. MS (-0.07, 95% CI -2.14 to 2.01; p=0.948). Inter-system inclination correlations were strong among BP, EE, and ZS (r≈0.80-0.90) and moderate to strong for MS vs. others (r≈0.57-0.75). Conclusion Platforms were not fully interchangeable. Retroversion showed no group-level bias but reduced precision, particularly for MS, while inclination was highly precise yet displayed platform-specific level differences (notably lower with ZS). Based on this, threshold-adjacent decisions (augment selection, baseplate tilt) may vary by platform. Verification of retroversion outliers and confirmation of inclination near boundaries are recommended.
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.