MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411195723 · doi:10.1186/s13063-025-08902-x

The smallest worthwhile effect on pain and function for rotator cuff repair surgery: a benefit-harm trade-off study

2025· article· en· W4411195723 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Harrison J Hansford, Rachelle Buchbinder, Joshua R Zadro, James H. McAuley, Manuela L. Ferreira, Adriane M. Lewin, Richard S. Page, Ian A. Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health and Medical Research Council
KeywordsMedicineRotator cuffHarmPostoperative painRotator cuff injurySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) is the minimum benefit required in addition to that from a comparator for an intervention to be considered worthwhile by patients. We aimed to estimate the SWE for rotator cuff repair (with decompression and debridement) compared to either decompression and debridement alone or to non-surgical treatment for people with atraumatic shoulder pain. METHODS: Benefit-harm trade-off study. We recruited English-speaking adults aged 45-75 years with shoulder pain of intensity ≥ 4 (on a 0-10 scale) for ≥ 6 months to our online survey through paid advertising on Facebook. Participants must have sought care in the past 6 months and could not have had recent shoulder surgery or significant recent shoulder trauma. Participants were explained three treatments: rotator cuff repair (with subacromial decompression and debridement), subacromial decompression and debridement alone, and non-surgical treatment. Participants completed the benefit-harm trade-off survey to determine the SWE of improvements in pain and function for rotator cuff repair compared to the other treatments and again after one week to assess reliability. We used univariable linear regression to estimate associations between baseline characteristics and SWE. RESULTS: We recruited 56 participants. The mean ± standard deviation age was 58.4 ± 6.7 years, and 39 (70%) were female. For rotator cuff repair to be worthwhile compared to decompression and debridement alone, participants needed to see at least a median 40% (interquartile range (IQR) 20-62.5) between-group improvement in pain and function. Compared to non-surgical treatment, the SWE was a median 40% (IQR 30-60). On the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) Index, the SWE values equate to a between-group improvement of 28/100 points (533/2100 on the raw WORC score). Female sex was associated with larger SWEs for both comparisons. Reliability analyses were underpowered, 25/56 (45%) provided follow-up data. The intraclass correlation coefficient estimates ranged from 0.60 to 0.77. CONCLUSIONS: This SWE indicates the benefit required by people with shoulder pain to consider the costs and risks of surgical rotator cuff repair worthwhile is larger than previously estimated minimum clinically important differences (13.5-28/100 on the WORC Index). This SWE may be used to inform the design or interpret the findings of trials of these comparisons. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (osf.io/crj9p). Registered retrospectively on 11/06/2024.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.298 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207