Research Appraisals
Evidence-based critical appraisals of the latest medical research, systematically evaluated using Oxford CEBM methodology.
Showing 2 appraisals
Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery
Shoulder injuries in rugby union: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Shoulder injuries are common in Rugby Union, resulting in prolonged absence and considerable burden. Reported incidence, severity, and mechanisms vary widely, reflecting the multiple high-impact actions in the sport. Various management approaches exist to treat a wide range of pathologies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesise evidence on the epidemiology, mechanisms, and treatment of shoulder injuries in rugby. PUBMED, SCOPUS, and WEB OF SCIENCE were searched from database inception until 1st June 2025. From 1,099 abstracts screened, 37 studies were included. The pooled match incidence was 11.02 injuries/1,000 player-hours (95% CI 7.23-16.82), though heterogeneity was very high (I² = 97%) and the 95% prediction interval was wide (2.11-57.61 injuries/1,000 player-hours), indicating the pooled rate should be read as an average across diverse populations rather than a single representative value. Higher rates were seen in male elite (13.74/1,000 h) and high school/university players (12.28/1,000 h). Training incidence was considerably lower (0.20/1,000 h). Substantial between-study heterogeneity was observed across all incidence analyses, reflecting genuine variation across playing levels, sex, and surveillance methods. Tackling was the predominant injury mechanism, most often affecting the tackler. Bankart, Latarjet, and Bristow procedures all produced favourable reported outcomes for surgical management of anterior shoulder instability. These were indirect comparisons drawn from observational cohorts, however, and comparative effectiveness between techniques cannot be determined from the available evidence. Shoulder injuries in rugby occur far more often in matches than in training, result in prolonged time loss, and are most sustained in tackling. Surgical stabilisation is associated with favourable reported outcomes, though the comparative findings should be regarded as hypothesis-generating, and high-quality comparative studies are warranted. Greater attention to prevention, improved reporting of mechanisms, and focused research on female players should be prioritised.
31 July 2026
Read appraisal →JBJS reviews
One-Stage or Two-Stage Revision for Infected Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Head-to-Head Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies
BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following shoulder arthroplasty is a devastating complication associated with substantial morbidity and revision burden. While 2-stage revision has traditionally been regarded as the gold standard for chronic shoulder PJI, single-stage revision has emerged as a potential alternative. The aim of this systematic review was to directly compare infection-related outcomes and complications between single-stage and 2-stage revision arthroplasties for shoulder PJI. METHODS: This systematic review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251159566) and conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched up to September 22, 2025. Comparative observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating single-stage vs. 2-stage revision for shoulder PJI in adults were eligible; no RCTs were identified. Primary outcomes were reinfection and infection control success; overall complications were secondary. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated within each study and pooled using a random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. RESULTS: Thirteen retrospective comparative studies involving 260 patients (127 single-stage and 133 two-stage) were included. Compared with 2-stage revision, single-stage revision showed a lower, but not statistically significant, odds of reinfection (OR 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-1.04; p = 0.06; I2 = 0%) and overall complications (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.18-1.53; p = 0.24; I2 = 0%) and a higher, but nonsignificant, odds of infection control success (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.45-5.40; p = 0.48; I2 = 17%). CONCLUSION: Single-stage revision demonstrated infection control and complication rates comparable with 2-stage revision for shoulder PJI. Although no statistically significant differences were observed, trends favored single-stage revision. Given that the certainty of the evidence was graded as low, these findings should be interpreted with caution, and high-quality RCTs are required to define optimal patient selection and surgical strategy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
30 July 2026
Read appraisal →