MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388099568 · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2023.10.025

Bone Marrow Stimulation Does Not Lead to Lower Retear Rates, Better Functional Outcomes, or Higher Complication Rates at Short‐Term Follow‐Up for Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Meta‐analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2023· review· en· W4388099568 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Long Pang, Lei Yao, Zining Wang, Tao Li, Yinghao Li, Chunsen Zhang, Xin Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWest China Hospital, Sichuan UniversityDepartment of Science and Technology of Sichuan ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineRotator cuffRandomized controlled trialSurgeryMeta-analysisMagnetic resonance imagingElbowVisual analogue scaleCochrane LibraryComplicationNuclear medicineRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To determine the effect of bone marrow stimulation (BMS) on retear rates, functional outcomes, and complication rates in patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) through a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library were searched on March 25, 2023. Two evaluators independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the methodologic quality of the enrolled studies. Meta‐analysis was conducted using RevMan software, version 5.4. Results A total of 7 randomized controlled trials with 638 patients were included. The evaluation of rotator cuff tendon integrity was conducted using distinct imaging modalities. Specifically, 259 patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging whereas 208 patients underwent ultrasound. Additionally, a subset of 95 patients underwent either of these modalities; however, the precise distribution between these 2 modalities was not explicitly delineated. Compared with RCR alone, RCR combined with BMS provided similar retear rates ( P = .51, I 2 = 46%), Constant‐Murley scores ( P = .14, I 2 = 0%), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (standardized shoulder assessment form) scores ( P = .56, I 2 = 0%), Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index scores ( P = .20, I 2 = 0%), visual analog scale scores ( P = .19, I 2 = 0%), forward flexion ( P = .18, I 2 = 0%), external rotation ( P = .62, I 2 = 0%), severe complication rates ( P = .56, I 2 = 0%), and mild complication rates ( P = .10, I 2 = 0%). Conclusions Compared with the outcomes observed after isolated arthroscopic RCR, arthroscopic RCR with BMS showed comparable results in terms of retear rate, functional outcomes, and incidence of complications. Level of Evidence Level II, meta‐analysis of Level I and II 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.045
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.143
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery→Same topicShoulder Injury and Treatment→French-language works237,207→