ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Structural healing after rotator cuff repair: clinical predictors, biomarkers, prediction models, and readiness for precision care.
Review in Frontiers in 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Structural healing after rotator cuff repair is clinically important, yet individual healing trajectories remain difficult to predict, monitor, and translate into individualized care. Evidence spans routine clinical predictors, systemic metabolic biomarkers, quantitative imaging, tissue phenotypes, genetic variation, transcriptomic signatures, and artificial intelligence-based prediction models. However, prior reviews rarely distinguish these evidence objects or evaluate them according to intended clinical use and stage of validation. This focused Mini Review assesses readiness for precision care across five linked dimensions: measurement validity, context-specific clinical validity, added value beyond routine predictors, independent validation, and action or impact evidence. Current literature is dominated by prognostic associations and model-development studies, whereas routine clinical predictors remain the most mature benchmarks. Promising signals have emerged across modalities, but heterogeneous structural endpoints, inconsistent measurement procedures, limited external validation, and the absence of decision-linked impact studies continue to impede individualized care. The principal challenge is therefore not candidate scarcity, but conversion of associations into reproducible, transportable, and actionable evidence. By mapping each evidence class to prognosis, monitoring, diagnosis, or treatment-effect prediction, this review proposes a translational roadmap for biomarker-informed risk stratification, postoperative surveillance, and prospective evaluation of individualized management pathways.
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.