Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 485

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Rotator Cuff Repair: Published Evidence on Factors Associated With Repair Integrity and Clinical Outcome

McElvany, Matthew D., McGoldrick, Erik, Gee, Albert O., Neradilek, Moni Blazej, Matsen, Frederick A.·2015·The American Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract

Background: Rotator cuff tears are common, and rotator cuff repair represents a major health care expense. While patients often benefit from rotator cuff repair, anatomic failure of the repair is not unusual. Purpose: To identify the published evidence on the factors associated with retears and with suboptimal clinical outcomes of rotator cuff repairs. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of articles with evidence levels 1-4. Methods: A total of 2383 articles on rotator cuff repairs published between 1980 and 2012 were identified. Only 108 of these articles, reporting on over 8011 shoulders, met the inclusion criteria of reporting quantitative data on both imaging and clinical outcomes after rotator cuff repair. Factors related to the patients, their shoulders, the procedures, and the results were systematically categorized and submitted for meta-analysis. Results: While the number of relevant articles published per year increased dramatically over the period of the study, the clinical and anatomic results did not show improvement over this period. The weighted mean retear rate was 26.6% at a mean of 23.7 months after surgery. Retears were associated with more fatty infiltration, larger tear size, advanced age, and double-row repairs. Clinical improvement averaged 72% of the maximum possible improvement. Patient-reported outcomes were generally improved whether or not the repair restored the integrity of the rotator cuff. The inconsistent and incomplete data in the published articles limited the meta-analysis of factors affecting the outcome of rotator cuff repair. Conclusion: In spite of a dramatic increase in the number of publications per year, there is little evidence that the results of rotator cuff repair are improving. The information needed to guide the management of this commonly treated and costly condition is seriously deficient. To accumulate the evidence necessary to inform practice, future clinical studies on the outcome of rotator cuff repair must report important data relating to each patient’s condition, the surgical technique, the outcome in terms of integrity, and the change in patient self-assessed comfort and function.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0363546514529644

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 42 references

Metadata

Authors
McElvany, M. D., McGoldrick, E., Gee, A. O., Neradilek, M. B., & Matsen, F. A.
Venue
The American Journal of Sports Medicine
Published
2014-04-21
Volume
43
Issue
2
Pages
491-500
ISSN
  • 0363-5465 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3365
OpenAlex
W2123797201
Cited by
485
References
42
FWCI
27.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Rotator Cuff Repair: Published Evidence on Factors Associated With Repair Integrity and Clinical Outcome. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0363546514529644
The paper
McElvany, M. D., McGoldrick, E., Gee, A. O., Neradilek, M. B., & Matsen, F. A. (2015). Rotator Cuff Repair: Published Evidence on Factors Associated With Repair Integrity and Clinical Outcome. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546514529644

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.