↓ Skip to main content

Which is the best repair of articular-sided rotator cuff tears: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Which is the best repair of articular-sided rotator cuff tears: a meta-analysis
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13018-015-0224-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lin Sun, Qiang Zhang, Heng’an Ge, Yeqing Sun, Biao Cheng

Abstract

Tear conversion followed by repair and trans-tendon techniques have been widely used for partial-thickness rotator cuff tears. Both of them showed favorable results with regard to the management of articular-sided partial-thickness rotator cuff tears (PTRCTs) of more than 50 % thickness. However, controversy continues with the best management. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes between the two techniques. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched for relevant studies published before October 1, 2014. Studies that clearly reported a comparison between the two procedures were selected. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scale (ASES) and the re-tear rate were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using the special meta-analysis software called "Comprehensive Meta Analysis." Final meta-analysis after the full-text review included four studies about tear conversion followed by repair and seven studies about trans-tendon technique. The trans-tendon technique showed no significant difference with the tear conversion followed by repair technique with regard to the ASES scale (P = 0.69). But the re-tear rate (P < 0.05) was markedly lower in the trans-tendon technique group than the tear conversion and repair technique group. In conclusion, the meta-analysis suggests that the trans-tendon technique is better than the tear conversion followed by repair technique with regard to the management of articular-sided PTRCTs of more than 50 % thickness in the re-tear rate aspect.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 8 23%
Unknown 10 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Unspecified 2 6%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 May 2015.
All research outputs
#15,333,633
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#646
of 1,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,588
of 266,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#20
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,368 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,679 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.