ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2026
Prognostic Factors for Repair Integrity After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Repair integrity is the most frequently assessed objective outcome after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). Multiple studies evaluated independent prognostic factors for repair integrity. However, there is a lack of a comprehensive quantitative review summarizing these findings. Purpose: To provide a descriptive synthesis of the published association estimates between candidate prognostic factors and repair integrity after ARCR. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The EMBASE, Medline, and Scopus databases were screened (January 2014-March 2024) for longitudinal studies with multivariate analyses and at least 6 months of follow-up (registration number: CRD42020199257). Association measures were converted to correlation coefficients ( Results: Of 10,568 records, 30 studies met the inclusion criteria, representing 13,161 patients (mean age, 59 years; female participants: 45%). Recurrent defect rates ranged from 5% to 43%. The meta-analysis included 45% (92/206) of reported association measures, covering 15 factors across 27 studies. There was high-quality evidence supporting that increased age ( Conclusion: Moderate- to high-certainty evidence supports 5 prognostic factors-including sociodemographic and diagnostic-related variables-as being associated with higher recurrent defect rates. These results may be used to prioritize further prognostic research 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.