MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415717711 · doi:10.1016/j.xrrt.2025.100611

Treatment of isolated greater tuberosity fractures: a scoping review

2025· review· en· W4415717711 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mathilde Abildgaard, David Karimi, Kristine Rask Andreasen, Dennis Karimi, Tazio Maleitzke, Per Hölmich, Adam Witten

Bibliographic record

VenueJSES Reviews Reports and Techniques · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreater TuberosityDisplacement (psychology)Randomized controlled trialBiomechanicsMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: There are no evidence-based guidelines to support the management of isolated greater tuberosity fractures. While the choice between nonoperative and operative treatment is generally based on the degree of fracture displacement, the definition of an acceptable displacement continues to be debated. Consequently, the ideal management of these fractures can be a therapeutic challenge. The objective of this study was to create an overview of the literature investigating the treatment of isolated greater tuberosity fractures. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension guidelines for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL were systematically searched from inception to September 29, 2024. Original studies investigating the treatment of isolated greater tuberosity fractures were eligible for inclusion. Screening of studies was independently performed by 3 reviewers. Data items were extracted using a standardized charting form. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed by 2 independent reviewers using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Results: 3.788 records were identified in the search, 296 were retrieved for full-text screening, of which 59 were included. No randomized controlled trials were identified. 88% of the included studies were retrospective and 98% had a moderate or high risk of bias. Most of the included studies investigated operative treatment of displaced fractures (defined as >5 mm) in patient populations with a mean age between 40 and 60 years. Few studies investigated nonoperative treatment and treatment in young (<40 years) or elderly (>60 years) patients. Detailed fracture characteristics were not consistently reported. Accordingly, the size of the fragment was reported in 8% of the included studies, fractures were subclassified into avulsion, split or depression type in 29% of the included studies, and the direction of fragment displacement was reported in 34% of the included studies. Conclusion: The literature regarding the treatment of isolated greater tuberosity fractures is comprised of studies with a moderate to high risk of bias and a lack of randomized controlled trials. A 5 mm fracture displacement threshold is often used to guide treatment, though it has not been validated in clinical studies. High-quality studies are needed to establish evidence-based guidelines and improve clinical decision-making.

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)0.000
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJSES Reviews Reports and TechniquesSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207