MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409128103 · doi:10.1186/s13063-025-08822-w

ARC (Australian Rotator Cuff) trial: study protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled trial comparing rotator cuff repair to no repair during arthroscopic shoulder surgery for people with shoulder pain and non-acute rotator cuff tears

2025· article· en· W4409128103 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ian A. Harris, Richard S. Page, Rachelle Buchbinder, Ville Äärimaa, Sam Adie, G. Brown, Nancy Cinnadaio, Maurizio Damiani, Joseph Descallar, Manuela L. Ferreira, Nadine E. Foster, Stephen D. Gill, Katrina Hutchison, Teppo L. N. Järvinen, Oliver Khoo, David Lieu, Christopher G. Maher, Justine Naylor, Geoffrey C.S. Smith, Luke Spencer, Yvana Toh, Andrew Whan

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRotator cuffShoulder surgerySurgeryPlaceboRotator cuff injuryRandomized controlled trialClinical trialPhysical therapyAcute painAnesthesiaAlternative medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Degenerative rotator cuff tears are common and are often treated with surgical repair. Randomised trials have not shown a clear advantage to surgery over non-surgical treatment, but there have been no published placebo-controlled trials investigating rotator cuff repair. This study aims to compare arthroscopic shoulder surgery with rotator cuff repair to surgery without rotator cuff repair (placebo) for improving shoulder pain and function in people with shoulder pain and full-thickness degenerative rotator cuff tears. METHODS: The study is a multicentre two-parallel arm, blinded, individually randomised controlled trial (RCT). Participants will be people aged 40-75 years (inclusive) with more than 6 months of shoulder pain, a degenerative (non-traumatic) full thickness rotator cuff tear 1 to 4 cm in length for whom surgery is recommended and repair of the tear is the main reason for surgery. The intervention is arthroscopic surgery (including-as indicated-bursectomy, debridement, acromioclavicular joint resection, acromioplasty and biceps tenodesis or tenotomy) with rotator cuff repair. The control is the same arthroscopic shoulder surgery without rotator cuff repair. Participants will be randomised to cuff repair or no cuff repair in a 1:1 ratio intra-operatively, after all other surgical procedures have been performed. Participants, follow-up surgeons, physiotherapists, study staff and statisticians will be blinded. Post-surgical rehabilitation will be usual care for rotator cuff repair in both groups. The primary outcome will be shoulder pain and function measured using the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index at 6 months post-surgery. DISCUSSION: The ARC trial will provide low bias evidence on a common surgical procedure: rotator cuff repair for degenerative tears. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12620000789965) on 5 August 2020 and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (universal trial number U1111-1251-6599).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207