Objective Measures for Assessing Readiness to Return to Sport After Shoulder Instability Procedures Are Not Standardized: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To report objective measures utilized to assess readiness to return to sport after shoulder instability procedures. Methods: Our systematic review included studies if they assessed active individuals after a shoulder instability procedure with at least 1 patient-reported outcome or physical performance measure. We excluded studies of atraumatic instability, studies only reporting imaging, or studies of biomechanics. Risk of bias was assessed with the Methodological Items for Non-Randomized Studies tool, and studies were further scored with the Return to Sport Value Assessment. Results: Thirty-seven articles selected for inclusion scored a median of 18.5 (comparative) and 10.0 (noncomparative) on the Methodological Items for Non-Randomized Studies and a mean of 2.5 on the Return to Sport Value Assessment. Twelve patient-reported outcomes were utilized across 19 studies to assess pain, function, and psychological readiness, with the Western Ontario Shoulder Index and the Shoulder Instability Return to Sport Index reported most frequently. Eighteen studies reported strength, most commonly internal and external rotation, and 18 studies reported range of motion. Physical performance tests, 6 discrete tests and 1 composite score, were less frequently reported (8 studies), with the Closed Kinetic Chain Upper Extremity Stability Test, Y-Balance Test of the Upper Quarter, and Unilateral Seated Shot-Put Test reported in more than 1 study. Deficits in patient-reported outcomes and limb symmetry persisted at the time of return to sport. Conclusions: Most patients undergoing shoulder stabilization procedures regained fundamental strength and range of motion. However, some studies noted difficulties in achieving sufficient performance metrics for athletic activities 6 months postsurgery. Due to lack of standardized measures, recommendations for specific test components and benchmark data for clinical decision-making are not available. Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level III and 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".