Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42757324›Full record

ReviewJB & JS open access

Biologic Augmentation Improves Rotator Cuff Integrity But Not Clinically Significant Patient Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Jake X Checketts, Stephen D Daniels, Corey J Schiffman, Frederick A Matsen, Jason E Hsu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jake X CheckettsDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5529-4494
Stephen D DanielsDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1487-576X
Corey J SchiffmanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5891-5196
Frederick A MatsenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6465-4826
Jason E HsuDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9774-1849

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Biologic augmentation is increasingly used to enhance tendon healing after rotator cuff repair, with recent American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons guideline updates supporting certain implants. However, clinically significant benefits to the patient remain unclear. The primary objectives of this study were (1) to assess whether adding biologic augmentation to rotator cuff repair lowers retear rates and (2) to determine whether biologic augmentation yields superior patient-reported outcomes that exceed the minimal clinically important difference threshold for clinical significance. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out for Level I randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL) from inception to January 1, 2025, per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Only RCTs reporting postoperative imaging and patient-reported outcomes of American Shoulder & Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Constant, Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) were included. Random-effects models evaluated retear rates and functional scores; subgroup analyses examined platelet rich plasma (PRP), patch, and other biologics. Mixed-effects models and correlations assessed the relationship between retear and function. Results: Twenty RCTs (1,327 shoulders) were included. Biologic augmentation reduced the retear rate by approximately 12% (14.8% vs. 26.7%; RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50-0.76, p < 0.0001; I Conclusion: In the included RCTs, biologic augmentation was associated with lower retear rates but not clinically significantly greater patient-reported outcomes after rotator cuff repair. Level of Evidence: Level I, evidence-based systematic review. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Identifiers

PMID42757324
PMCPMC13585321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.