Finite element analysis of the rotator cuff: A systematic review

Drew H. Redepenning, Paula M. Ludewig, John M. Looft

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Background: Finite element modeling serves as a promising tool for investigating underlying rotator cuff biomechanics and pathology. However, there are currently no concrete guidelines for reporting in finite element model studies. This has compromised the reliability, validity, and reproducibility of literature due to omission of pertinent items within publications. Recently a Finite Element Model Grading Procedure has been proposed as a reporting guideline for model developers. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of rotator cuff focused finite element models and characterize the reporting quality of those articles. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase to find relevant articles. Each article was graded and given a reporting quality ranking based on a score generated from the Finite Element Model Grading Procedure. Findings: We found that only 5/22 articles had scores of 75% or higher and fell within the “exceptional” reporting quality range. Most of the articles (16/22) fell within the “good” reporting quality range with scores between 50% and 75%. However, 9/16 articles within the “good” reporting quality range had scores below 60%. Interpretation: This study indicates that improved guidelines and standards for good reporting practices must be made in the field of finite element modeling. Furthermore, it supports the use of the Finite Element Model Grading Procedure as an objective method for evaluating the quality of finite element model reporting in the literature.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)73-85
Number of pages13
JournalClinical Biomechanics
Volume71
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2020

Fingerprint

Finite Element Analysis
Rotator Cuff
Guidelines
Biomechanical Phenomena
PubMed
Reproducibility of Results
Publications
Pathology

Keywords

  • Finite element modeling
  • Rotator cuff
  • Shoulder
  • Systematic review

PubMed: MeSH publication types

  • Journal Article
  • Review

Cite this

Finite element analysis of the rotator cuff : A systematic review. / Redepenning, Drew H.; Ludewig, Paula M.; Looft, John M.

In: Clinical Biomechanics, Vol. 71, 01.2020, p. 73-85.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Redepenning, Drew H. ; Ludewig, Paula M. ; Looft, John M. / Finite element analysis of the rotator cuff : A systematic review. In: Clinical Biomechanics. 2020 ; Vol. 71. pp. 73-85.
@article{a83a1dbffb2542dbad7a0d4339ea1627,
title = "Finite element analysis of the rotator cuff: A systematic review",
abstract = "Background: Finite element modeling serves as a promising tool for investigating underlying rotator cuff biomechanics and pathology. However, there are currently no concrete guidelines for reporting in finite element model studies. This has compromised the reliability, validity, and reproducibility of literature due to omission of pertinent items within publications. Recently a Finite Element Model Grading Procedure has been proposed as a reporting guideline for model developers. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of rotator cuff focused finite element models and characterize the reporting quality of those articles. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase to find relevant articles. Each article was graded and given a reporting quality ranking based on a score generated from the Finite Element Model Grading Procedure. Findings: We found that only 5/22 articles had scores of 75{\%} or higher and fell within the “exceptional” reporting quality range. Most of the articles (16/22) fell within the “good” reporting quality range with scores between 50{\%} and 75{\%}. However, 9/16 articles within the “good” reporting quality range had scores below 60{\%}. Interpretation: This study indicates that improved guidelines and standards for good reporting practices must be made in the field of finite element modeling. Furthermore, it supports the use of the Finite Element Model Grading Procedure as an objective method for evaluating the quality of finite element model reporting in the literature.",
keywords = "Finite element modeling, Rotator cuff, Shoulder, Systematic review",
author = "Redepenning, {Drew H.} and Ludewig, {Paula M.} and Looft, {John M.}",
year = "2020",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.10.006",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "71",
pages = "73--85",
journal = "Clinical Biomechanics",
issn = "0268-0033",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Finite element analysis of the rotator cuff

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Redepenning, Drew H.

AU - Ludewig, Paula M.

AU - Looft, John M.

PY - 2020/1

Y1 - 2020/1

N2 - Background: Finite element modeling serves as a promising tool for investigating underlying rotator cuff biomechanics and pathology. However, there are currently no concrete guidelines for reporting in finite element model studies. This has compromised the reliability, validity, and reproducibility of literature due to omission of pertinent items within publications. Recently a Finite Element Model Grading Procedure has been proposed as a reporting guideline for model developers. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of rotator cuff focused finite element models and characterize the reporting quality of those articles. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase to find relevant articles. Each article was graded and given a reporting quality ranking based on a score generated from the Finite Element Model Grading Procedure. Findings: We found that only 5/22 articles had scores of 75% or higher and fell within the “exceptional” reporting quality range. Most of the articles (16/22) fell within the “good” reporting quality range with scores between 50% and 75%. However, 9/16 articles within the “good” reporting quality range had scores below 60%. Interpretation: This study indicates that improved guidelines and standards for good reporting practices must be made in the field of finite element modeling. Furthermore, it supports the use of the Finite Element Model Grading Procedure as an objective method for evaluating the quality of finite element model reporting in the literature.

AB - Background: Finite element modeling serves as a promising tool for investigating underlying rotator cuff biomechanics and pathology. However, there are currently no concrete guidelines for reporting in finite element model studies. This has compromised the reliability, validity, and reproducibility of literature due to omission of pertinent items within publications. Recently a Finite Element Model Grading Procedure has been proposed as a reporting guideline for model developers. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of rotator cuff focused finite element models and characterize the reporting quality of those articles. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase to find relevant articles. Each article was graded and given a reporting quality ranking based on a score generated from the Finite Element Model Grading Procedure. Findings: We found that only 5/22 articles had scores of 75% or higher and fell within the “exceptional” reporting quality range. Most of the articles (16/22) fell within the “good” reporting quality range with scores between 50% and 75%. However, 9/16 articles within the “good” reporting quality range had scores below 60%. Interpretation: This study indicates that improved guidelines and standards for good reporting practices must be made in the field of finite element modeling. Furthermore, it supports the use of the Finite Element Model Grading Procedure as an objective method for evaluating the quality of finite element model reporting in the literature.

KW - Finite element modeling

KW - Rotator cuff

KW - Shoulder

KW - Systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074386238&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85074386238&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.10.006

DO - 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.10.006

M3 - Review article

C2 - 31707188

AN - SCOPUS:85074386238

VL - 71

SP - 73

EP - 85

JO - Clinical Biomechanics

JF - Clinical Biomechanics

SN - 0268-0033

ER -