ArticleClinics in orthopedic surgery2026
New Measurement Method for Lateral Acromial Protrusion as an Alternative to Critical Shoulder Angle, Independent of Sagittal Glenoid Tilt.
Article in Clinics in orthopedic surgery, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the widespread use of the critical shoulder angle (CSA) for assessing lateral acromial protrusion, its reliability and consistency remain debatable. Moreover, significant CSA differences were often observed between shoulders in the same patient, even in the absence of severe bony deformity. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the reliability of the CSA across different imaging methods and points of view, and to propose and validate a new measurement method, the acromial protrusion ratio (APR), as a potential alternative for assessing lateral acromial protrusion by complementing the limited reliability of the CSA. Methods: This study was conducted in 2 phases: an exploratory phase evaluating the reliability of the CSA and APR and a validation phase assessing their clinical applicability. We retrospectively reviewed 25 patients who underwent reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with a CSA difference > 5° between the shoulders in the exploratory phase and prospectively collected data from 38 shoulders in the validation phase. Measurements were independently performed by 2 assessors using different imaging methods (plain radiography and 3-dimensional [3D] reconstructed computed tomography) and points of view at the measurement (orthogonal [3DO] and neutral [3DN] scapular positions). Inter- and intraclass correlations were calculated to assess the reliability of the measurements. Results: CSA measurements showed significant differences between the shoulders on plain radiographs ( Conclusions: The CSA differed according to the measurement method and scapular tilt, even in an optimized true anteroposterior view. In contrast, the APR was consistent regardless of the measurement method and scapular tilt. Therefore, the APR may serve as a reliable alternative for assessing lateral acromial protrusion to complement the weak reliability of the CSA. However, its clinical relevance should be further validated in future studies.
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.