Definitions and reporting of 'failure' after rotator cuff repair: A systematic review of level I and level II evidence and proposal for standardisation.
- 1Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
- 2Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
- 3Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
Failure is widely reported in randomised controlled trials assessing rotator cuff repair (RCR), yet the term lacks a consensus definition and reported rates vary widely. This systematic review characterised how RCR failure is defined and reported in Level I and II studies and proposes a reporting standard. MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane were searched for English-language Level of Evidence I and II studies published between January 2003 and April 2025 reporting on failure following RCR. Data on definitions, parameters and etiologies of failure were extracted and summarised through descriptive statistics. Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Ten (45.5%) provided a formal definition of failure; the remainder described specific etiologies. Imaging-based assessment of tendon integrity was the most common parameter among formal definitions (7 of 10), and re-tear was the most common etiology among studies without one (9 of 12). Reported failure rates tracked closely with the parameter used, exceeding 50% under imaging-based definitions and reaching 0% under a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM)-based definition. RCR trials lack a uniform definition of failure. We propose a multi-domain reporting standard incorporating structural, patient-reported and clinical outcomes, with thresholds to be established through expert consensus.
Related
- Hypoxic exposure and air-quality reporting in normobaric hypoxic resistance training: a systematic evidence map and exploratory meta-analysis
- Clinical Evidence on Psilocybin and Its Representation in Media Reporting: A Systematic Review.
- Comorbidity Exposure-Window Definitions and Multidimensional Disparities in Long COVID Risk: Evidence from a U.S. National Cohort (2020-2024)
- Time toxicity in cancer care: a systematic review of definitions and measurement methods
- Definitions and determinants of success in left bundle branch area pacing: a systematic review
BibTeX
@article{cecere2026definitions,
title = {{Definitions and reporting of 'failure' after rotator cuff repair: A systematic review of level I and level II evidence and proposal for standardisation.}},
author = {Matthew Cecere and Ashlee Chan and Praveen Sritharan and Kalter Hali and Ujash Sheth},
journal = {Shoulder \& elbow},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1177/17585732261501972},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42953234},
note = {CC BY-NC},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Definitions and reporting of 'failure' after rotator cuff repair: A systematic review of level I and level II evidence and proposal for standardisation.
AU - Matthew Cecere
AU - Ashlee Chan
AU - Praveen Sritharan
AU - Kalter Hali
AU - Ujash Sheth
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/27
JO - Shoulder & elbow
DO - 10.1177/17585732261501972
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42953234
AB - Failure is widely reported in randomised controlled trials assessing rotator cuff repair (RCR), yet the term lacks a consensus definition and reported rates vary widely. This systematic review characterised how RCR failure is defined and reported in Level I and II studies and proposes a reporting standard. MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane were searched for English-language Level of Evidence I and II studies published between January 2003 and April 2025 reporting on failure following RCR. Data on definitions, parameters and etiologies of failure were extracted and summarised through descriptive statistics. Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Ten (45.5%) provided a formal definition of failure; the remainder described specific etiologies. Imaging-based assessment of tendon integrity was the most common parameter among formal definitions (7 of 10), and re-tear was the most common etiology among studies without one (9 of 12). Reported failure rates tracked closely with the parameter used, exceeding 50% under imaging-based definitions and reaching 0% under a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM)-based definition. RCR trials lack a uniform definition of failure. We propose a multi-domain reporting standard incorporating structural, patient-reported and clinical outcomes, with thresholds to be established through expert consensus.
SN - 1758-5732
SN - 1758-5740
ER -