Chronic calcific tendonitis of the rotator cuff: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing operative and nonoperative interventions

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Calcific tendinitis is a relatively common shoulder disorder, with 7%-17% of individuals with shoulder pain having rotator cuff calcium deposits. Several nonoperative interventions, extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) and ultrasonography-guided needling (UGN), and surgical techniques have been described to treat calcific tendonitis with satisfactory outcomes. Clinical guidelines are lacking for surgical excision in cases refractory to nonoperative treatment. Several arthroscopic and open operative techniques have been described to treat calcific tendonitis with satisfactory clinical outcomes. The purpose of this systematic review of randomized controlled trials is to compare outcomes and complications of nonoperative vs. operative management of chronic calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff, to provide evidence-based treatment guidelines for practitioners.

Related collections

Most cited references 58

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

Julian P T Higgins, Simon G Thompson, Jonathan J Deeks … (2003)

0 comments Cited 11691 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Is Open Access

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

Alessandro Liberati, Douglas G Altman, Jennifer Tetzlaff … (2009)

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

0 comments Cited 2628 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Investigating minimal clinically important difference for Constant score in patients undergoing rotator cuff surgery.

Juha Kukkonen, Tommi Kauko, Tero Vahlberg … (2013)

The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is increasingly used to evaluate treatment effectiveness. The MCID for the Constant score has not been previously reported.