MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414933977 · doi:10.1002/jeo2.70449

Early mobilisation versus delayed protocols after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for nonfracture indications: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2025· review· en· W4414933977 on OpenAlex
Napatpong Thamrongskulsiri, Thun Itthipanichpong, Tanawan Kongmalai, Pinkawas Kongmalai

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Orthopaedics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrthopedic surgeryArthroplastySports medicineShoulder surgerySystematic reviewMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes, range of motion, pain scores and complication rates between early and delayed mobilisation following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, Ovid Medline and Scopus databases were searched from inception through May 2025. Comparative studies evaluating early versus delayed mobilisation after RTSA were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the modified Coleman Methodology Score, while risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies and the Risk of Bias 2 tool for randomised controlled trials. Pooled outcomes included patient-reported outcome scores, range of motion and postoperative complications. Results: Six studies with a total of 1763 patients were included. All included studies in this review investigated RTSA for nonfracture indications. Methodological quality ranged from fair to excellent across included studies. Meta-analysis showed that early mobilisation was associated with statistically significantly greater improvements in forward flexion (mean difference [MD] of 4.36°), abduction (MD of 4.95°) and pain visual analogue scale scores (MD of -0.40) compared to delayed mobilisation. No statistically significant differences were found between groups in Constant scores, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, external rotation, dislocation rates, or revision surgery. Notably, early mobilisation was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative fractures. Conclusion: Early mobilisation after RTSA may yield modest improvements in pain and shoulder motion, though below established MCID thresholds. Importantly, it was associated with a lower risk of postoperative fractures and did not increase other complications. These findings support the safety of early rehabilitation, while highlighting the limited clinical magnitude of benefit. Level of Evidence: Level III.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.357 · 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