Editorial Commentary: Return to Sport After Surgical Treatments of the Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation Seems to Be Almost Perfect in the Literature.

Systematic reviews identify completed studies that address a research question and evaluate the results of these studies to arrive at conclusions about a body of research. They should be encouraged because the findings, with power enhanced by the larger sample size available from the combined studies, often represent an important scientific contribution. The systematic review findings also can be a useful background for developing practice guidelines in the future. One of limitations of this approach is a risk of publication bias. Studies with negative results are more likely to remain unpublished or excluded from the review owing to a lack of reporting outcome of the specific interest. Although publication bias is difficult to eliminate, it should be addressed by the authors with appropriate statistical procedures that may be helpful in detecting its presence. Negative results should not be masked by overall good outcomes. This rather long caveat relates to a recent review showing that return to sport after surgical treatments of acromioclavicular joint dislocation seems to be almost perfect in the literature. Perfection is rare, so publication bias could be a limitation of the review.