ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2026
Letter to the editor regarding "Perioperative antihypertensive medication use is associated with no antifibrotic benefit but higher complications and revision rates following shoulder arthroplasty".
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo examine the statistical robustness and interpretive framing of a recent retrospective cohort study examining perioperative RAAS inhibitor use and outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty.
methodsWe evaluated the multiplicity of reported outcomes, sample-size implications for statistical significance, absolute risk differences, and the transparency of propensity score matching covariates against accepted observational-study principles.
resultsThe study reported at least 14 separate outcomes across 90-day and 1-year timepoints in two propensity-matched comparisons (ARB vs control, ACEi vs control), with no correction for multiple comparisons. With cohort sizes of 27,938-30,602 per group, absolute risk differences of less than 0.5% may reach conventional statistical significance, yet the abstract reports only directional findings ("higher rates") without absolute risk differences or confidence intervals for individual outcomes. The propensity score matching covariates are not specified in the abstract, and the title and abstract emphasize "higher complications and revision rates" while the conclusion acknowledges that findings should be interpreted as associative rather than causal.
conclusionClarification of multiplicity correction, absolute risk differences, matching covariates, and consistency between the title/abstract framing and the conclusion's causal caveat would strengthen the interpretability and clinical utility of this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42776340What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.