Table 1.

Details of included studies

Characteristics	Abrams et al. [29]	Gartsman and O’Connor [30]	MacDonald et al. [31]	Milano et al. [32]
Year	2014	2004	2011	2007
Country	United States	United States	Canada	Italy
Study design	RCT	RCT	RCT	RCT
Level of evidence	II	II	I	I
Procedures	ACR versus ACR-A	ACR versus ACR-SD	ACR versus ACR-A	ACR versus ACR-SD
Inclusion criteria	Full-thickness superior rotator cuff tear	Isolated, repairable full-thickness supraspinatus tendon tear and type 2 acromion	Full-thickness rotator cuff tear	Full-thickness rotator cuff tear and type 2 or 3 acromion
No. of patients	95	93	86	80
Mean age in years	58.8 (SD ±8.1)	59.7 (range 37–81)	56.8 (range 33–77)	60.3 (SD ±8.3)
Mean follow-up in months	24	15.6 (SD ±3.3)	24	24
Study outcome measures	ASES, SST, UCLA, VAS, Constant–Murley	ASES	ASES, ROM, WORC	Constant–Murley, DASH, Work-DASH
Study characteristics comparable at baseline	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Use of validated questionnaires	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Presence of independent examiners	Yes	No	Not reported	Yes
Difference in rehabilitation protocols in groups	No	No	Yes	No

ACR Arthroscopic cuff repair, ACR-A arthroscopic cuff repair with acromioplasty, ACR-SD arthroscopic cuff repair with subacromial decompression, ASES American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, DASH Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, RCT randomized controlled trial, ROM range of motion, SD standard deviation, SST Simple Shoulder Test, UCLA University of California–Los Angeles score, VAS Visual Analog Scale for pain, WORC Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index, Work-DASH Work-Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire