ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2026
Sex- and Population-Specific Formulas for Glenoid Height-Based Assessment of Glenoid Bone Loss: 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Assessment of glenoid bone loss is essential in managing anterior shoulder instability. Although glenoid height-based methods are straightforward and practical for estimating native glenoid width in injured shoulders, inconsistent formulas across studies have created uncertainty in clinical practice, possibly due to population differences. Purpose: To systematically review the literature to (1) compare glenoid height and width according to sex and population and (2) synthesize unique sex- and population-specific regression equations for height-based assessment of glenoid bone loss. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched through July 2025 for studies reporting glenoid height and width using computed tomography. Data on demographics, glenoid height, width, and regression equations were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria. Pooled mean differences were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis, and sex- and population-specific regression equations were synthesized with inverse-variance weighting. Results: Five studies comprising 819 shoulders met the inclusion criteria. The MINORS scores ranged from 9 to 10 (out of 16). Males had significantly larger glenoid dimensions than females, with mean differences of 5.30 mm in height and 4.52 mm in width (both Conclusion: Estimating glenoid width from glenoid height has been proposed in multiple studies. Because this relationship differs by sex and population, subgroup-specific regression equations should be applied when making such estimations. While these formulas do not represent an individual's native glenoid anatomy, they can serve as reference values and support surgical decision-making, reinforcing the importance of population-specific strategies in instability surgery.
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.