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

Table 2 Direct and indirect analysis for inconsistency of network meta-analysis

Outcome	Comparison	Direct		Indirect		Difference		P >\|z\|
Outcome	Comparison	Coef.	Std.Err.	Coef.	Std.Err.	Coef.	Std.Err.	P >\|z\|
Constant score	MMA versus SB	− 1.57	− 1.45	0.14	27.77	− 1.71	27.80	0.95
	SB versus SR	0.85	1.41	− 4.05	2.85	4.90	3.18	0.12
	SB versus TO	− 2.20	1.96	2.75	2.52	− 4.95	3.20	0.12
	SR versus DR	0.51	1.15	3.87	66.81	− 3.36	66.81	0.96
	SR versus TO	1.90	2.08	− 3.05	2.41	4.95	3.20	0.12
ASES sore	MMA versus SB	− 0.46	0.98	0.89	28.90	− 1.36	28.91	0.963
	SB versus SR	− 1.07	1.53	0.43	30.88	− 1.51	30.91	0.96
	SR versus DR	1.00	0.57	4.08	66.76	− 3.07	66.76	0.96
	SR versus TO	2.5	1.37	5.56	20.02	− 3.06	20.0	0.99
Healing rate	MMA versus SB	− 0.14	0.47	0.47	21.32	− 0.62	21.33	0.98
	SB versus SR	− 0.88	0.22	0.47	0.88	− 1.35	0.91	0.14
	SB versus TO	0.18	0.51	− 1.17	0.75	1.36	0.91	0.14
	SR versus DR	0.79	0.19	2.68	57.77	− 1.89	57.77	0.97
	SR versus TO	− 0.29	0.73	1.07	0.56	− 1.36	0.91	0.14

MMA modified Mason–Allen, SB suture bridge, SR single-row, DR double-row, TO transosseous

ISSN: 1749-799X