Background
Methods
Murthi [16] | Singajaru [20] | Chelli [21] | Braun [22] | Modi [23] | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title and abstract
| Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Introduction
| |||||
Background/rationale | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Objectives | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Methods
| |||||
Study design | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Setting | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No |
Participants | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Data sources | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Bias | No | No | No | Yes | No |
Study size | No | No | No | No | No |
Quantitative variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Statistical methods | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Results
| |||||
Participants | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Descriptive data | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Outcome data | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Main results | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Others analyses | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Discussion
| |||||
Key results | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Limitations | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Interpretation | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Generalizability | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Other information
| |||||
Funding | No | No | No | No | No |
TOTAL | 18/22 | 18/22 | 19/22 | 20/22 | 17/22 |
Section/topic | # | Checklist item | Page # |
---|---|---|---|
TITLE
| |||
Title | 1 | Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. | 1 |
Abstract
| |||
Structured summary | 2 | Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number. | 2 |
Introduction
| |||
Rationale | 3 | Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. | 3 |
Objectives | 4 | Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). | 3,4 |
Methods
| |||
Protocol and registration | 5 | Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number. | - |
Eligibility criteria | 6 | Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale. | 4 |
Information sources | 7 | Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched. | 4 + Table 1
|
Search | 8 | Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated. | 4 + Figure 1
|
Study selection | 9 | State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis). | 4-5 + Figure 1
|
Data collection process | 10 | Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators. | 4 + Table 3
|
Data items | 11 | List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made. | 4 + Table 2
|
Risk of bias in individual studies | 12 | Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis. | 4 + Table 3
|
Summary measures | 13 | State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means). | - |
Synthesis of results | 14 | Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis. | Table 3
|
Section/topic | # | Checklist item | Reported on page # |
Risk of bias across studies | 15 | Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies). | 4 + Table 3
|
Additional analyses | 16 | Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified. | - |
RESULTS
| |||
Study selection | 17 | Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram. | 5 + Figure 1
|
Study characteristics | 18 | For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations. | 5,6 + Table 2
|
Risk of bias within studies | 19 | Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item 12). | Table 3
|
Results of individual studies | 20 | For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot. | 5,6,7 + Table 2
|
Synthesis of results | 21 | Present the main results of the review. If meta-analyses are done, include for each, confidence intervals and measures of consistency. | - |
Risk of bias across studies | 22 | Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15). | Table 3
|
Additional analysis | 23 | Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item 16]). | - |
Discussion
| |||
Summary of evidence | 24 | Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers). | 7,8 |
Limitations | 25 | Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias). | 8 |
Conclusions | 26 | Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research. | 8 |
Funding
| |||
Funding | 27 | Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. | - |
Inclusion criteria
-
Studies carried out with humans.
-
Subjects with chronic supraspinatus tendon or LHBT pathologies, both diagnosed medically.
-
Subjects over 35 years old.
-
Studies with a larger sample than 20 subjects.
-
Patients with no previous surgery except arthroscopies for diagnosis purposes.
-
Studies whose original language is English or Spanish.
Exclusion criteria
Search strategy
Databases | MeSH* terms. | Search strategies |
---|---|---|
MEDline | 1. Chronic | #2 AND #4 AND #7 |
WOK | 2. Supraspinatus | #2 AND #3 |
CINAHL | 3. “Long Head of the Biceps Tendon” | #1 AND #2 AND #4 AND (#6 OR #7) |
Scopus | 4. Biceps | #2 AND #4 AND (#8 OR #9) |
PEDro | 5. Rotator cuff | #4 AND #5 AND (#6 OR #7) |
6. Tendinosis | ||
7. Tendinopathy | ||
8. Evaluation | ||
9. Examination | ||
DeCS*1terms. | ||
CSIC (IME) | 10. Supraespinoso | #10 AND #11 |
Dialnet | 11. Bíceps | #10 AND #11 AND #12 |
12. Tendinopatía |
Results
Search results
Characteristics of subjects
Diagnostic tests used
Variables
Synthesis of results
Author and year | Design and duration | Subjects’ characteristics | Sample size | Diag ST/RC | Diag LHBT | Diagnostic test ST/RC | Diagnostic test LHBT | Variables | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Murthi AM et al.[16] | Incidence study, 4 years | Subjects with previous arthroscopy of subacromial syndrome or RC tendinopathy | 200 | Yes | No | Specific tests | Intra-articular LHBT arthroscopy | LHBT inflammation or degeneration |
Group 1:
|
Group 1: Arthroscopy with tenosynovectomy (mean age 47) | Physical findings | 34% of subjects with partial rupture of the RC. | |||||||
Group 2: Arthroscopy with tenodesis (Mean age 55) | Arthrography | Pathology of RC | 57% patients with complete rupture of the RC. | ||||||
Subject’s gender is not specified | 49% patients with associated degenerative and inflammatory signs of LHBT | ||||||||
Group2:
| |||||||||
63% of cases show microscopic changes of inflammation. | |||||||||
9% cases with signs of inflammation and calcification. | |||||||||
15% of the patients with fibrosis | |||||||||
Singajaru, VM et al.[20] | Histological study of cases and controls |
Intervention group:
| 28 | Yes | No | VAS scale | Shoulder pain | Presence of GCRP and Substance P (evidence inflammation) | |
14 subjects with previous arthroscopy of the shoulder | Yegarson’s test | Functional limitation | The tendon and the sheath of 11 out of 14 subjects were affected (78.5%) | ||||||
Mean age 51-52 | Speed’s test | Histological changes of the biceps tendon and sheath | |||||||
Control group:
| O’brien’s test | ||||||||
14 cadavers without RC alterations | Crank’s test | ||||||||
Mean age 72-76 | |||||||||
Subject’s gender is not specified | |||||||||
Chelli BM et al.[21] | Descriptive prevalence study 2 years | Subjects with previously diagnosed pathology of RC. | 64 | Yes | Ultrasonography MR | Ultrasonography MR | Most frequent age of lesion | 55 patients with affectation of the ST (85.9%) | |
Mean age 56 (35–75) | Most injured shoulder | 16 patients with associated affectation of LHBT (29.1%) | |||||||
35 males and 29 females | Full and partial rupture of: supraspinatus tendon, infraspinatus tendon, subscapularis tendon and LHBT | ||||||||
Braun S. et al.[22] | Cohort study | Subjects with shoulder pathologies | 207 | No | Yes | Arthroscopy | No | Pulley tears | 67 patients were affected by biceps pulley (32.3%), of which 45 had alterations of the supraspinatus tendon (22%). |
Mean age 48,5 155 males and 74 females | Pulley tears Pulley width | ||||||||
Position of the biceps tendon | |||||||||
Other tendon injuries | |||||||||
RC injury | |||||||||
Modi CS et al.[23] | Analytical retrospective | Patients with RC pathology following arthroscopy. | 100 | Yes | Hawkins’ test | Arthroscopy | Age | 62 patients with thinning/lossof the supraspinatus tendon (62%) | |
Without physiotherapy treatment for over 6 months. | Neer’s test | Kind of previous repair | 22 lesions of LHBT (22%) | ||||||
Impingement signs + | Ultrasonography | Associated synovitis | |||||||
Subjects over 35 years | MR | Biceps degeneration | |||||||
Subject’s gender is not specified | Labrum degeneration | ||||||||
Other RC lesions | |||||||||
Osteoarthritis |