Multiple Treatment Comparisons for Large and Massive Rotator Cuff Tears: A Network Meta-analysis
Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, ISSN: 1536-3724, Vol: 31, Issue: 6, Page: 501-508
2021
- 9Citations
- 46Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations9
- Citation Indexes9
- CrossRef8
- Captures46
- Readers46
- 46
Article Description
Background:There is no consensus about the best choice between all the options available for large and massive rotator cuff tear (mRCTs) management.Objective:To determine the comparative effectiveness of current treatment options for management of large and mRCTs.Design:Network meta-analysis.Setting:We searched the Cochrane systematic reviews, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for all trials of adults with large and mRCTs that report preoperative and postoperative functional scores after an intervention option.Patients:The network meta-analysis included 20 trials with 1233 patients with 37.24 months follow-up.Interventions:Eight treatment options for management of large and mRCTs were compared.Main Outcome Measures:The primary effectiveness outcome was the functional score.Results:This meta-analysis did not show statistically significant differences between conservative, partial repair, patch or platelet rich plasma (PRP) augmentation, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, and complete repair. Latissimus dorsi (LD) transfer was ranked first for effectiveness [standardized mean difference (SMD): 2.17, 0.28-4.07] and debridement ranked last (SMD: -2.15, -3.13 to -1.17).Conclusions:Latissimus dorsi transfer seems to be most effective for management of large and mRCTs, although some heterogeneity was observed in this network meta-analysis of full text reports. The choice of the operating technique depends on the patient's general health status and his expectations. When a decision has been reached to perform surgery, a repair, even if partial, should be attempted. Procedures involving biologic augmentation (eg, PRP) seem to convey no additional benefit while introducing more risk. Debridement alone should be avoided.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85089905597&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/jsm.0000000000000786; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31743220; https://journals.lww.com/10.1097/JSM.0000000000000786; https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/jsm.0000000000000786; https://journals.lww.com/cjsportsmed/Abstract/9000/Multiple_Treatment_Comparisons_for_Large_and.99025.aspx
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know