ReviewActa ortopedica brasileira2026
EVIDENCE-BASED REVIEWS & RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BRAZILIAN SOCIETY OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY: DOUBLE-ROW REPAIR FOR LARGE ROTATOR CUFF TEARS.
Review in Acta ortopedica brasileira, 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
Introduction: Large (≥ 3 cm) rotator cuff tears have a poorer prognosis, and the optimal arthroscopic repair configuration (single-row vs double-row) remains controversial. Methods: We performed an evidence-based review of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials comparing arthroscopic double-row and single-row repair for tears ≥ 3 cm. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and BVS were searched through May 2025. Only studies reporting size-stratified outcomes were included. Methodological quality was assessed, and the certainty of evidence was graded using the GRADE approach. Results: Two high-quality systematic reviews and five randomized trials provided separate data for tears ≥ 3 cm. Double-row repair showed better functional outcomes than single-row repair, with improved ASES (MD -3.09; 95% CI -6.19 to 0.02) and UCLA scores (MD -1.47; 95% CI -2.21 to -0.72) (moderate-quality evidence). Limited randomized data suggested higher healing rates with double-row repair (OR 3.44; 95% CI 1.09-10.88; low-quality evidence). Pain alone did not differ meaningfully beyond the immediate postoperative period. Conclusions: For rotator cuff tears ≥ 3 cm, arthroscopic double-row repair provides superior functional outcomes and likely higher structural healing versus single-row repair, supporting its preferential use in large and massive tears, with decisions individualized to patient and lesion characteristics.
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.