Skip to main content Accessibility help


  • Seihee Kim (a1), Jinseub Hwang (a1) (a2), Min Jee Kim (a1), Jae-Young Lim (a1) (a3), Woo Hyung Lee (a1) (a4) (a5) and Ji Eun Choi (a6)...


Objectives: Rotator cuff tear is the leading cause of the decline in quality of life for older adults, but comparative evidence on treatment effectiveness is lacking. This study systematically reviewed the effects of various rotator cuff tear treatments through a Bayesian meta-analysis of the related randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

Methods: We searched nine electronic databases for RCTs evaluating rotator cuff tear treatments from their inception through June 2017. A systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-Decision Support Unit guidelines (Supplementary Table 1). Outcomes included functional improvement, pain one year after surgical treatment, and tendon structural integrity. The Bayesian network meta-analysis was applied for functional improvement and pain, based on an assumption of consistency and similarity. Tendon integrity was reported descriptively.

Results: Fifteen RCTs were selected. Patients undergoing physiotherapy after open surgery showed statistically significant functional improvements compared with those undergoing physiotherapy only (mean differences, 9.1 [credible interval, 0.9–17.4]). Open surgery with physiotherapy was associated with a decrease in pain 1 year after treatment compared with when physiotherapy was combined with arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery, mini open surgery, platelet-rich plasma therapy, or physiotherapy alone (absolute value of mean difference 1.2 to 1.4). The tendon integrity results were inconsistent.

Conclusions: Some surgical treatments were associated with significant improvement in function and pain, but evidence regarding their comparative effectiveness is still lacking. A well-designed RCT discussing functional and structural treatment outcomes is needed in future.



Hide All
1. Sher, JS, Uribe, JW, Posada, A, Murphy, BJ, Zlatkin, MB. Abnormal findings on magnetic resonance images of asymptomatic shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77:10-15.
2. Kluczynski, MA, Isenburg, MM, Marzo, JM, Bisson, LJ. Does early versus delayed active range of motion affect rotator cuff healing after surgical repair? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44:785-791.
3. Saltzman, BM, Jain, A, Campbell, KA, et al. Does the use of platelet-rich plasma at the time of surgery improve clinical outcomes in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair when compared with control cohorts? A systematic review of meta-analyses. Arthroscopy. 2016;32:906-918.
4. AHRQ. Comparative effectiveness of nonoperative and operative treatments for rotator cuff tears. AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Review no 22., 2010.
5. AAOS. Optimizing the management of rotator cuff problems. AAOS, 2010. (accessed January 18, 2018).
6. Jansen, JP, Fleurence, R, Devine, B, et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health. 2011;14:417-428.
7. Joo, H, Lee, YJ, Shin, JS, et al. Medical service use and usual care of common shoulder disorders in Korea: a cross-sectional study using the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service National Patient Sample. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e015848.
8. Lu, G, Ades, AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004;23:3105-3124.
9. Salanti, G, Ades, AE, Ioannidis, JP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:163-171.
10. Chaimani, A, Higgins, JPT, Mavridis, D, Spyridonos, P, Salanti, G. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS One. 2013;8:e76654.
11. Dias, S, Welton, NJ, Caldwell, DM, Ades, AE. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2010;29:932-944.
12. Casella, G, Berger, RL. Statistical inference. 2nd ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbery Press; 2001.
13. Sevivas, N, Ferreira, N, Andrade, R, et al. Arthroscopic and open repair of massive rotator cuff tears have similar results. J ISAKOS. 2017. doi:
14. Seida, JC, LeBlanc, C, Schouten, JR, et al. Systematic review: nonoperative and operative treatments for rotator cuff tears. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153:246-255.
15. Hollis, S, Campbell, F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 1999;319:670-674.
16. Moosmayer, S, Lund, G, Seljom, US, et al. Tendon repair compared with physiotherapy in the treatment of rotator cuff tears: a randomized controlled study in 103 cases with a five-year follow-up. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery - American Volume, 2014; 96 (18): 1504-1514.
17. Kukkonen, J, Joukainen, A, Lehtinen, J, Mattila, KT, Tuominen, EK, Kauko, T, Aärimaa, V. Treatment of non-traumatic rotator cuff tears: A randomised controlled trial with one-year clinical results. Bone Joint J. 2014 Jan;96–B (1):75-81.
18. van der Zwaal, P, Thomassen, BJ, Nieuwenhuijse, MJ, et al. Clinical outcome in all-arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair in small to medium-sized tears: a randomized controlled trial in 100 patients with 1-year follow-up. Arthroscopy, 2013; 29 (2): 266-273.
19. Frederik, O, Lambers, Heerspink, van, Raay, et al. Comparing surgical repair with conservative treatment for degenerative rotator cuff tears: a randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24:1274-1281.
20. Emshoff, R, Bertram, S, Emshoff, I. Clinically important difference thresholds of the visual analog scale: a conceptual model for identifying meaningful intraindividual changes for pain intensity. Pain. 2011;152:2277-2282.
21. AAOS. The AAOS Appropriate Use Criteria for Optimizing the Management of Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears. AAOS. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21:772-775.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Kim et al. supplementary material
Kim et al. supplementary material 1

 Word (4.0 MB)
4.0 MB


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed