Table 3

Summary of findings and GRADE evidence profile

Certainty assessmentNo. of patientsEffectCertaintyImportance
No. of studiesStudy designRisk of biasInconsistencyIndirectnessImprecisionOther considerationsBiceps tenodesisBiceps tenotomyRelative
(95% CI)
Absolute
(95% CI)
Functional PROMs
10Randomised trialsSeriousSerious†Not seriousSerious‡none416403SMD 0.14 SD higher
(0.04 lower to 0.32 higher)
⨁◯◯◯
Very low
Critical
Pain (VAS)
8Randomised trialsSerious§Not seriousNot seriousNot seriousNone350345MD 0.11 lower
(0.28 lower to 0.06 higher)
⨁⨁⨁◯
Moderate
Important
Popeye deformity
10Randomised trialsSerious¶Not seriousNot seriousSerious**Strong association††41/410 (10.0%)109/401 (27.2%)OR 0.29
(0.19 to 0.45)
174 fewer per 1000
(from 206 fewer to 128 fewer)
⨁⨁⨁◯
Moderate
Important
  • *One out of 10 studies included were at high risk of bias using the Cochrane ROB V.2.0 tool. Only 2 out of 10 studies included were at low risk of bias using the Cochrane ROB V.2.0 tool.

  • †Moderate heterogeneity (I2=37%) with variable point estimates and CIs.

  • ‡Small sample sizes with no power calculation and an underpowered sample size in 4 out of 10 studies included.

  • §One out of 8 studies included were at high risk of bias using the Cochrane ROB V.2.0 tool. Only 2 out of 8 studies included were at low risk of bias using the Cochrane ROB V.2.0 tool.

  • ¶One out of 10 studies included were at high risk of bias using the Cochrane ROB V.2.0 tool. Only 2 out of 10 studies included were at low risk of bias using the Cochrane ROB V.2.0 tool.

  • **Small sample sizes with no power calculation and an underpowered sample size in 3 out of 10 studies included.

  • ††Effect size Z=5.04 (p<0.00001). A Z-score of >2 used as indication of large effect size.

  • GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation; MD, mean difference; PROMs, patient-reported functional outcome measures ; ROB, Risk of Bias; SMD, standardised mean difference; VAS, Visual Analogue Scale.