Effects of arthroscopic vs. mini-open rotator cuff repair on function, pain & range of motion. A systematic review and meta-analysis
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 14, Issue: 10, Page: e0222953
2019
- 20Citations
- 96Usage
- 127Captures
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
- Citations20
- Citation Indexes20
- 20
- Usage96
- Downloads74
- Abstract Views22
- Captures127
- Readers127
- 127
Article Description
Objective To assess the effectiveness of arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair on function, pain and range of motion at 3-, 6- and 12-month follow ups. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Setting Clinical setting. Participants Patients 18 years and older with a rotator cuff tear. Intervention/Comparison Arthroscopic/mini-open rotator cuff repair surgery followed by post operative rehabilitation. Main outcome measures Function and pain. Results Six RCTs (n = 670) were included. The pooled results, demonstrated no significant difference between arthroscopic and mini open approach to rotator cuff repair on function (very low quality, 4 RCTs, 495 patients, SMD 0.00, 3-month; very low quality, 4 RCTs, 495 patients, SMD -0.01, 6-month; very low quality, 3 RCTs, 462 patients, SMD -0.09, 12-months). For pain, the pooled results, were not statistically different between groups (very low quality, 3 RCTs, 254 patients, MD -0.21, 3-month; very low quality, 3 RCTs, 254 patients, MD -0.03, 6-month; very low quality, 2 RCTs, 194 patients, MD -0.35, 12-months). Conclusion The effects of arthroscopic compared to mini-open rotator cuff repair, on function, pain and range of motion are too small to be clinically important at 3-, 6- and 12-month follow ups.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85074357358&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222953; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31671101; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222953; https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/boneandjointpub/1419; https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2418&context=boneandjointpub; https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/boneandjointpub/28; https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=boneandjointpub; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222953; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0222953
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know