Significant demographic and geographic differences exist in the reporting of superior labrum from anterior to posterior tear literature: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance Superior labrum from anterior to posterior (SLAP) pathology can result in significant pain and functional limitation for a wide variety of patients. Although many different options have been described for the diagnosis and treatment of SLAP pathology, there is little high-quality evidence to support a given diagnosis/treatment method. Objective The aim of this study was to review the global demographics and trends of SLAP literature, diagnosis, management and consistency of reported outcomes Evidence review We performed a systematic search for studies addressing SLAP pathology published over the last 10 years. Extracted data included sample size, study location, intervention, outcome measures reported, sex distribution and level of evidence. Management was compared between geographic areas. Findings We identified 363 studies reporting on SLAP management over the past decade that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. The majority of studies originated from North America (50.4%), followed by Asia (22.3%) and Europe (20.9%) with most studies describing results of operative intervention originating from the USA (58.5%). We found the majority of literature related to SLAP pathology was case series level data (44.0%) consisting of sample sizes of less than 40 patients (50.1%). The majority of studies presented clinical outcome scores with the ASES score being the most commonly reported (28.3%). The most common complications reported were pain (32.6%) and stiffness (30.4%) following surgical intervention. Conclusions Current literature related to the management of SLAP pathology demonstrates a predominance of North American studies with low levels of evidence consisting of small sample sizes and variably reported clinical outcome scores. Future research should focus on multicentre, randomised studies to clarify current controversies in the surgical versus non-operative management of SLAP pathology. Relevance Significant demographic and geographic differences exist in the diagnosis and treatment of SLAP. Level of evidence Level IV, systematic review of level I–IV 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 | 0.009 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".