Skip to main content

Table 1 Basic data of included studies

From: Comparative efficacy of 5 suture configurations for arthroscopic rotator cuff tear repair: a network meta-analysis

First author

Year

Country

Evidence level

Interventions

Sample (shoulder)

Follow-up (months)

Study design

Outcome

Nos

Mohamed

2018

Egypt

III

MMA versus SB

21/25

49

RCT

Constant; ASES

–

Michael E

2018

Greece

II

SR versus SB

34/32

46

RCS

Constant; healing rate

7

Christian

2012

Germany

III

MMA versus SB

20/20

16

RCS

Constant; healing rate

8

Kwang

2018

Korea

III

MMA versus SB

39/37

35

RCS

Constant; ASES; healing rate

8

William

2010

USA

III

SR versus SB

78/54

24

PCS

ASES; healing rate

9

Atsushi

2017

Japan

II

TO versus SB

11/10

6

RCT

Constant

–

Teruhisa

2011

Japan

III

SR versus DR versus SB

65/23/107

24

RCS

ASES; healing rate

9

Cosimo

2013

Italy

III

SR versus DR

20/20

40

RCS

Constant; healing rate

8

Frank

2014

USA

III

SR versus DR versus SB

20/21/22

24

RCS

Constant; ASES; healing rate

9

Ignacio

2012

Spain

I

SR versus DR

80/80

24

RCT

Constant; ASES; healing rate

-

Gary M

2013

USA

I

SR versus SB

43/47

10

RCT

Healing rate

–

Ji-Sang

2019

Korea

III

SR versus SB

31/25

24

RCS

Constant; ASES; healing rate

7

Burks

2009

Australia

I

SR versus DR

20/20

12

RCT

ASES

–

Ma

2011

China

II

SR versus DR

27/20

24

RCT

Constant; ASES; healing rate

–

Charousset

2007

France

II

SR versus DR

35/31

28

RCS

ASES; healing rate

6

Park

2008

Korea

II

SR versus DR

40/38

24

RCS

Constant; healing rate

8

Franceschi

2007

Italy

I

SR versus DR

30/30

24

RCT

Constant; ASES

–

Sugaya

2005

Japan

III

SR versus DR

39/41

35

RCS

Healing rate

8

Kyoung

2011

Korea

I

SR versus DR

31/31

24

RCT

ASES; healing rate

–

Andrea

2009

Italy

I

SR versus DR

40/40

24

RCT

Constant; ASES; healing rate

–

Nuri

2009

Turkey

II

SR versus DR

34/34

24

RCT

Constant

–

Lapner

2012

Canada

I

SR versus DR

39/34

24

RCT

Constant

–

Francesco

2016

Italy

I

SR versus DR

25/25

24

RCT

Constant; ASES; healing rate

–

Eduard

2009

Switzerland

III

SR versus DR

32/33

25

RCS

Healing rate

8

Manuel

2020

Spain

II

SR versus SB

25/25

33

PCS

Constant

9

Randelli P

2017

California

I

TO versus SR

34/35

15

RCT

Constant; ASES; healing rate

–

LuĂ­s Filipe

2018

Brazil

III

SR versus DR

29/27

38

RCS

Constant; ASES; healing rate

8

Jeung

2017

Korea

III

SR versus SB

190/225

53

RCS

ASES

7

Jong-Hun

2010

Korea

III

SR versus DR

22/25

22

RCS

Constant; ASES; healing rate

8

Roshan

2017

India

II

SR versus DR

28/28

6

RCT

ASES; healing rate

–

Junji

2015

Japan

III

SR versus SB

25/36

81

RCS

Healing rate

7

Raffaele

2018

Italy

II

TO versus SR

54/42

24

RCS

Constant; ASES; healing rate

9

Robert Z

2018

USA

III

SR versus SB

22/25

12

RCS

ASES; healing rate

7

Francisco

2006

Spain

I

SR versus DR

50/50

26

RCT

Healing rate

–

  1. RCT randomized controlled trial, RCS retrospective cohort study, PCS prospective cohort study, SR single-row, DR double-row, SB suture bridge, MMA modified Mason–Allen, TO transosseous