Key result
Recent data suggest that 1-year follow-up is clinically sufficient for rotator cuff repair outcomes, challenging the widely accepted 2-year benchmark as an unnecessary standard.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The editorial argues that a 1-year follow-up is clinically sufficient for rotator cuff repair outcome studies, challenging the arbitrary 2-year benchmark.
Research standards require reliable data from which we can draw accurate conclusions. For short-term outcome studies, one measure recommended by journals is preferring at least 2 years' minimum follow-up. In some cases, this is important to avoid false conclusions because of follow-up too short to detect either failure or complete improvement. However, although intended to prevent an incomplete picture, this mandate may not always add clinical utility. Recent data suggest that for rotator cuff repair outcomes, 1-year follow-up is clinically sufficient, making the 2-year recommendation an inconvenient and unnecessary standard. The widely accepted 2-year benchmark may be arbitrary and promotes a one-size-fits all approach; the approach can be evidence-based refined.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Joseph C. Brinkman (2024) conducted an editorial in rotator cuff repair. 1-year follow-up vs. 2-year follow-up was evaluated. Recent data suggest that 1-year follow-up is clinically sufficient for rotator cuff repair outcomes, challenging the widely accepted 2-year benchmark as an unnecessary standard.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: