SynthesisMedicine2026
Artificial intelligence empowering the diagnosis and treatment of rotator cuff tears: A systematic review from image optimization to prognosis prediction.
Synthesis 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is being developed for image acquisition, quantitative tissue assessment, diagnosis, and clinical prediction in rotator cuff tears. The breadth of this literature and its methodological limitations have not been integrated across the complete care pathway.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from inception to July 5, 2026 for English-language original studies applying AI to rotator cuff-related reconstruction, segmentation or quantitative imaging, diagnosis or classification, anatomical measurement, or prognosis. Two reviewers screened reports and extracted study, data, model, validation, reference standard, and performance characteristics. Diagnostic accuracy studies were assessed with QUADAS-2 and prediction-model studies with PROBAST. Because clinical tasks, modalities, models, reference standards, and reported metrics were not sufficiently comparable, evidence was synthesized narratively rather than pooled statistically.
resultsSixty-six reports were included: 35 diagnostic accuracy or classification studies, 20 segmentation or quantitative imaging studies, 9 prognosis or outcome prediction studies, 1 Magnetic Resonance Imaging reconstruction or image-optimization study, and 1 exploratory unsupervised-phenotyping study. Applications spanned Magnetic Resonance Imaging, radiography, ultrasound, computed tomography, clinical or multimodal data, motion video, and emerging sensing data. QUADAS-2 classified overall risk-of-bias as high in 27/36 diagnostic studies, unclear in 6/36, and low in 3/36. PROBAST classified all 8/8 completed prediction-model studies as high risk-of-bias; 1 protocol without model results was not rated. Promising internal performance was recurrent, but selection methods, imperfect or incompletely described reference standards, limited external validation, small or selected datasets, and analysis-stage weaknesses constrained clinical inference.
conclusionAI has proof-of-concept value across rotator cuff imaging and decision support, but the current evidence does not establish routine clinical readiness or replacement of clinician judgment. Prospective multicenter studies, transparent reference standards, independent external validation, calibration and clinical-utility assessment, and standardized task-specific reporting are required.
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.