The Role of Subacromial Decompression in Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Repair of Full‐Thickness Tears of the Rotator Cuff: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears with and without subacromial decompression. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (third quarter of 2011), Medline (1948 to week 1 of September 2011), and Embase (1980 to week 37 of 2011) for eligible randomized controlled trials. Two reviewers selected studies for inclusion, assessed methodologic quality, and extracted data. Pooled analyses were performed by use of a random effects and relative risk model with computation of 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: We included 4 randomized trials and 373 patients. Methodologic quality was variable as assessed by the CLEAR NPT (Checklist to Evaluate a Report of a Non-pharmacological Trial) tool. One trial showed that there was no difference in disease-specific quality of life (Western Ontario Rotator Cuff questionnaire) between the 2 treatment groups. A meta-analysis of shoulder-specific outcome measures (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons or Constant scores) or the rate of reoperation between patients treated with subacromial decompression and those treated without it also showed no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the currently available literature, there is no statistically significant difference in subjective outcome after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with or without acromioplasty at intermediate follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, systematic review of Level I studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".