ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2026
Decreased clinical and functional outcomes following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures compared to rotator cuff arthropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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. 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: Comparative studies of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) for proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) versus rotator cuff arthropathy (RCA) have yielded conflicting findings and lack comprehensive synthesis to guide perioperative counseling. This study aimed to systematically compare clinical and functional outcomes between patients undergoing rTSA for PHFs and RCA. Methods: A PROSPERO-pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis queried PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Web of Science on July 25, 2025, for studies comparing PHF- versus RCA-indicated rTSA. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies scale. Extracted variables included patient demographics, survey scores, range of motion, and revisions. Patient-reported outcome measures and functional outcomes were compared between patients undergoing rTSA for PHFs and RCA. Results: Eleven observational studies encompassing 6,698 patients (1,832 PHF; 4,866 RCA) met criteria; overall evidence quality was moderate. Compared with RCA, PHF patients had lower American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (mean difference -5 points; Conclusion: RTSA for PHF yields slightly lower shoulder function, range of motion, and a higher dislocation-related revision risk compared with RCA; though, absolute differences were modest. These findings support nuanced preoperative counseling, highlighting opportunities to optimize PHF-specific surgical strategies.
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.