MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406505047 · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2024.11.091

Recurrence, Return to Sport, and Reoperation Rates Appear Similar Between Males and Females After Surgery for Anterior Shoulder Instability: Future Research Requires Disaggregation by Sex

2025· review· en· W4406505047 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kenneth T. Nguyen, Patrick Ryan, Erin L. Brown, Shreya M. Saraf, Mia V. Rumps, Mary K. Mulcahey

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnterior shoulderMedicineReturn to sportSurgeryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationDemographyPhysical therapyAthletes

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To evaluate sex-based disparities in outcomes following surgery for anterior shoulder instability and to assess the quality of the current literature on this topic. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a June 2023 database search (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cinahl) identified Level I to III clinical studies on anterior shoulder instability (January 2003 to May 2023). Eligible studies included male and female outcomes after anterior shoulder stabilization. Systematic reviews, case reports, and case series were excluded. A meta-analysis examined sex-specific results: recurrence, reoperation, return to sport, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability (WOSI) index. RESULTS: The initial search identified 7,028 studies, with 14 meeting inclusion criteria, totaling 1,262 patients (73.9% male, 26.1% female). Of the studies, 53% were excluded due to failure to disaggregate by sex. The meta-analysis found comparable outcomes by sex for recurrence (odds ratio [OR] = 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-1.50; P = .77), reoperation rate (OR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.69-1.02; P = .08), or return to sport (OR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.54-2.22; P = .81) after arthroscopic Bankart, open Bankart, and open Latarjet procedures. Mean ASES scores were 91.08 ± 13.59 standard error of the mean (SEM) for males and 89.85 ± 16.73 SEM for females, while WOSI scores were 81.32 ± 19.23 SEM and 87.26 ± 14.09 SEM, respectively. Comparable outcomes were found in ASES (mean difference = -1.20; 95% CI, -4.28 to 1.88; P = .45) or WOSI scores (mean difference = 4.94; 95% CI, -0.31 to 10.00; P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence, return to sport, and reoperation rates were similar between males and females after arthroscopic Bankart, open Bankart, and open Latarjet procedures. Comparable outcomes were found in postoperative ASES and WOSI scores between sexes. Most relevant studies were excluded due to lack of disaggregation by sex, limiting the certainty of the conclusion and suggesting an opportunity to improve future research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level I and III 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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.101
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.101
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.017
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related SurgerySame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207