Fig 1.
Flow diagram of search strategy and study selection.
Table 1.
Overview of the included studies and baseline characteristics. CMS, Constant-Murley score. FU, follow-up. HA, hemiarthroplasty. HSF, Head-splitting fracture. LPF, locked plate fixation. NS, not specified. RTSA, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Δ approximation by using range as 95%CI.
Fig 2.
Overview of risk of bias assessment for the included studies.
(A) ROBINS-I risk of bias assessment for included non-randomized trials. (B) ROB 2 risk of bias assessment for included randomized controlled trials.
Table 2.
Pairwise difference of the mean CMS resulting from the network meta-analysis with a random effects model. HA, hemiarthroplasty. IA, inclination angle. LPF, locked plate fixation. RTSA, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.
Fig 3.
Connectivity diagram of the analysed treatments.
The size of the circles represents the sample size of the treatment groups.
Fig 4.
Forest plot of the analysed treatments.
The mean difference of the CMS compared to the reference group (LPF) is shown as a grey square with the corresponding 95%CI. Note that a higher CMS results in a positive difference, i.e., the intervention is superior to the reference treatment. However, there was no statistically noticeable difference between the interventions. HA, hemiarthroplasty. IA, inclination angle. LPF, locked plate fixation. RTSA, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.
Fig 5.
Reported mean CMS ±SD for each included study.
The mean CMS for all LPF variants was 64.3 ( ± 19.0), shown as a black line. The mean CMS for all RTSA variants was 66.1 ( ± 19.0), shown as a red line. CMS, Constant-Murley score. LPF, locked plate fixation. RTSA, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.