Search

Clinical studies are often at risk of spin, a form of bias where beneficial claims are overstated while negative findings are minimized or dismissed. Spin is often more problematic in abstracts given their brevity and can result in the misrepresentation of a study's actual findings. The goal of this study is to aggregate primary and secondary studies reporting the clinical outcomes of the use of subacromial balloon spacers in the treatment of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears to identify the incidence of spin and find any significant association with study design parameters. This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Independent searches were completed on 2 databases (PubMed and Embase) for primary studies, systematic and current concepts reviews, and meta-analyses and the results were compiled. Two authors independently screened the studies using a predetermined inclusion criteria and aggregated data including titles, publication journals and years, authors, study design, etc. Each study was independently assessed for the presence of 15 different types of spin. Statistical analysis was conducted to identify associations between study characteristics and spin. Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria for our analysis, of which 10 were reviews or meta-analyses and 19 were primary studies. Spin was identified in every study except for 2 (27/29, 93.1%). Type 3 spin, "Selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention" and type 9 spin, "Conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite reporting bias" were most frequently noted in our study, both observed in 12/29 studies (41.4%). Date of publication, and adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses or "The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews" were study characteristics associated with a higher rate of certain types of spin. There was a statistically significant association between disclosure of external study funding source and the presence of spin type 4, but none of the other forms of spin. Spin is highly prevalent in the abstracts of primary studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses discussing the use of subacromial balloon spacer technology in the treatment of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Our findings revealed that spin in the abstract tended to favor the balloon spacer intervention. Further efforts are required in the future to mitigate spin within the abstracts of published manuscripts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: No previous systematic reviews have reported on athletes who fail to return to sports after arthroscopic Bankart repair. Purpose: To review the literature on athletes who fail to return to sports after arthroscopic Bankart repair to determine the rate of athletes who did not return to sports and to identify the specific reasons for failure to return to sports by nonreturning athletes. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) were queried for articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Studies were considered eligible only if reporting the rate of failure for return to sports and providing the specific reasons why athletes were unable to return to sports. All records were screened by title, abstract, and full text by 2 authors independently, with any discrepancies resolved by a third senior author. For articles selected for inclusion, data were collected on the number of athletes, average age, average follow-up time, type of sport played, rate of failure to return to sports, and specific reasons for failure to return. A random-effects model was used to conduct the meta-analysis. Results: Seventeen studies were selected for inclusion reporting on a total of 813 athletes. The calculated weighted rate of failure to return to sports after arthroscopic Bankart repair was 15.6% (95% CI, 10.9%-21.1%). A significantly higher proportion of athletes cited shoulder-dependent versus shoulder-independent reasons for failure to return to sports (81.7% vs 18.3%; P <.0001). The most cited reasons for failure to return included recurrent or persistent instability (33.3%), fear of reinjury (17.7%), apprehension (9.9%), changes in priorities or personal interest (8.5%), lack of time (7.1%), and discomfort or pain with sports (6.4%). Conclusion: Our study estimated the rate of failure to return to sports after arthroscopic Bankart repair to be 15.6%, with most athletes citing shoulder-related reasons as the primary factor precluding return. Identifying the potential reasons preventing successful return to sports can guide surgeons in counseling athletes regarding postoperative expectations and addressing hesitations for returning to sports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: No previous systematic review to our knowledge has examined the reasons that athletes fail to return to sport (RTS) after ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) surgery. Purpose: To report the rate of failure to RTS after UCL surgery and identify reasons that preclude an athlete's ability to successfully RTS. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: This study was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We searched the PubMed, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases for studies on athletes who underwent either UCL reconstruction or repair that reported RTS rates and identified reasons for failure to RTS. Data were collected on the number of athletes included, average age, sport played, operative technique, average follow-up, rate of failure to RTS, and reasons for failure to return. A random-effects model was used to conduct the meta-analysis. Results: Included were 26 studies reporting on 1019 athletes. Primary or revision UCL reconstruction was performed in 913 patients (89.6%), while the remaining 106 patients (10.4%) underwent UCL repair. The pooled rate of failure to RTS after UCL reconstruction or repair was calculated to be 11.4% (95% CI, 8.4-14.7). A significantly higher estimated proportion of athletes failed to return because of elbow-related reasons compared with non–elbow-related reasons (55.3% vs 40.6%; P =.0352). Persistent pain (29/103; 28.2%) was the most common reason for failure to return, followed by elbow limitations and other unspecified elbow problems (19/103; 18.4%). There was moderate evidence for publication bias and study heterogeneity across the included studies. Conclusion: This meta-analysis estimated the rate of failure to RTS after UCL surgery as 11.4%, with the majority of athletes unable to return because of elbow pain. Future studies reporting outcomes and providing details as to why athletes are unable to RTS can better inform sport surgeons on factors precluding RTS and can guide clinical practice to better help athletes achieve their postoperative goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Small, preliminary studies and the systematic reviews on superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) that collate data are at increased risk spin. This study's primary objective was to identify, describe, and account for the incidence of spin in systematic reviews of SCR. This study's secondary objective was to characterize the studies in which spin was identified to determine whether identifiable patterns of characteristics exist among studies with spin. This study was conducted per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using a predetermined protocol. A search was conducted on the PubMed and Embase databases for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on SCR. Screening and data extraction were conducted independently by 2 authors. Each included study's abstract was assessed for the presence of the 15 most common types of spin, with full texts reviewed during cases of disagreement or for clarification. General data that were extracted included study title, authors, publication year, journal, level of evidence, study design, funding source, reported adherence to PRISMA guidelines, preregistration of the study protocol, and primary and secondary outcome measures. Full texts were used in the assessment of study quality per AMSTAR 2. We identified 53 studies during our search, of which 17 met the inclusion criteria. At least 1 form of spin was observed in all 17 studies. The most common types of spin were type 5 ("The conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite a high risk of bias in primary studies") and type 9 ("Conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite reporting bias"), both of which were observed in 11 studies (11 of 17, 65%). A statistically significant association between lower level of evidence and type 5 ("The conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite a high risk of bias in primary studies") was observed (P =.0175). A statistically significant association was also found between more recent year of publication and the spin category misleading interpretation (P =.0398), and between lower AMSTAR 2 score and type 13 ("Failure to specify the direction of the effect when it favors the control intervention") (P =.0260). No other statistical associations between other study characteristics were observed. Spin is highly prevalent in abstracts of SCR systematic reviews and meta-analyses. An association was found between the presence of spin and lower level of evidence, year of publication, and AMSTAR 2 ratings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Osteoporosis is a growing healthcare burden. By identifying osteoporosis-promoting genetic variations, we can spotlight targets for new pharmacologic therapies that will improve patient outcomes. In this metaanalysis, we analyzed mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) biomarkers in patients with osteoporosis.Methods: We employed our Search Tag Analyze Resource for the Gene Expression Omnibus (STARGEO) platform to conduct a metaanalysis to define osteoporosis pathogenesis. We compared 15 osteoporotic and 14 healthy control MSC samples. We then analyzed the genetic signature in Ingenuity Pathway Analysis.Results: The top canonical pathways identified that were statistically significant included the serine peptidase inhibitor kazal type 1 pancreatic cancer pathway, calcium signaling, pancreatic adenocarcinoma signaling, axonal guidance signaling, and glutamate receptor signaling. Upstream regulators involved in this disease process included ESR1, dexamethasone, CTNNβ1, CREB1, and ERBB2.Conclusion: Although there has been extensive research looking at the genetic basis for inflammatory arthritis, very little literature currently exists that has identified genetic pathways contributing to osteoporosis. Our study has identified several important genes involved in osteoporosis pathogenesis including ESR1, CTNNβ1, CREB1, and ERBB2. ESR1 has been shown to have numerous polymorphisms, which may play a prominent role in osteoporosis. The Wnt pathway, which includes the CTNNβ1 gene identified in our study, plays a prominent role in bone mass regulation. Wnt pathway polymorphisms can increase susceptibility to osteoporosis. Our analysis also suggests a potential mechanism for ERBB2 in osteoporosis through Semaphorin 4D (SEMA4D). Our metaanalysis identifies several genes and pathways that can be targeted to develop new anabolic drugs for osteoporosis treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]