Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association · 2024
One-Year Follow-Up Is Sufficient Time for Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Corvi Michaela E, Hurley Eoghan T, Doyle Tom, Lorentz Samuel G, Corvi John J, Dickens Jonathan F, Anakwenze Oke, Klifto Christopher S
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review to determine whether there were clinically significant differences in patient-reported outcome measures from 1- to 2-year follow-up following rotator cuff repair (RCR).
METHODS: A literature search of 3 databases was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on patient-reported outcomes at the 1- and 2-year follow-up following RCR were included. Meta-analysis was performed, and a P value <.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Nineteen randomized controlled trials with 2,110 patients were included. There was a statistically significant difference in American Shoulder and Elbow Score score between the 1-year (mean, 87) and 2-year (mean, 89.4) follow-up (P < .00001), but this did not reach the minimal clinically important difference. There was no statistically significant difference in visual analog scale pain score between the 1-year (mean, 0.9) and 2-year (mean, 0.8) follow-up (P = .10). Additionally, the differences in Simple Shoulder Test; University of California, Los Angeles score; Constant score; and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff index between the 1- and 2-year follow-up did not reach the minimal clinically important difference despite statistically significant differences.
CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant differences in patient-reported outcomes are reported between the 1- and 2-year follow-up points, although these differences fail to reach minimally clinically important differences. As a result, the 1-year follow-up may be sufficient to determine clinical outcomes from RCR.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.
METHODS: A literature search of 3 databases was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on patient-reported outcomes at the 1- and 2-year follow-up following RCR were included. Meta-analysis was performed, and a P value <.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Nineteen randomized controlled trials with 2,110 patients were included. There was a statistically significant difference in American Shoulder and Elbow Score score between the 1-year (mean, 87) and 2-year (mean, 89.4) follow-up (P < .00001), but this did not reach the minimal clinically important difference. There was no statistically significant difference in visual analog scale pain score between the 1-year (mean, 0.9) and 2-year (mean, 0.8) follow-up (P = .10). Additionally, the differences in Simple Shoulder Test; University of California, Los Angeles score; Constant score; and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff index between the 1- and 2-year follow-up did not reach the minimal clinically important difference despite statistically significant differences.
CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant differences in patient-reported outcomes are reported between the 1- and 2-year follow-up points, although these differences fail to reach minimally clinically important differences. As a result, the 1-year follow-up may be sufficient to determine clinical outcomes from RCR.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.