OBJECTIVE To guide treatment of adults with rotator cuff tendinopathy (RoCuTe) by evaluating the relative efficacy of treatments, benchmarked against minimal intervention, for the co-primary outcomes of pain, function and quality-of-life (QoL) across short-, medium-, and long-term follow-up.

DESIGN Systematic review with Bayesian predictive and network meta-analyses for synthesising complex interventions, guided by stakeholder involvement.

FUNDING Private Physiotherapy Education Foundation (UK) Silver Jubilee Award.

DATA SOURCES PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus, searched to 22/8/2025.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES High-quality (PEDro score ≥7) randomised controlled trials comparing any intervention with another active or minimal intervention for patients clinically diagnosed with RoCuTe of either traumatic or insidious presentation; and reporting outcomes for pain, function, ± QoL.

METHODS Title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and quality assessments were completed by two reviewers. Data extraction used the Elicit AI tool and was manually checked. Interventions were classified by treatment focus. Guided by patient and public involvement, pooled results from active interventions at short- (1 to ≤12 weeks), mid- (>12 weeks to <12 months) and long-term (≥12 months) were calculated for the primary analysis using Bayesian predictive meta-analysis models of within group change scores. Outcomes were benchmarked against an empirically derived minimal-intervention comparator (wait-and-see or sham). As a secondary analysis, network meta-analyses were conducted to synthesise relative effects and provide comparative rankings of active interventions. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, and certainty of evidence evaluated using GRADE.

RESULTS We retained and analysed 140 high-quality studies that included 10,260 patients, 55.9% female, with a mean age of 48±8 years. Minimal interventions were associated with small short-term improvements, modest medium-term improvements and some regression in the long-term; in pain (0–100 scale: short=2.6; mid=23.3; long=21.1), function (standardised mean change (SMC): short=0.13; mid=0.87; long=0.76), and QoL (SMC: short=0.05; mid=0.33). At all timepoints, all active interventions with sufficient data were superior to minimal intervention for pain (0–100 scale: short=18.1–37.9 [14 categories]; mid=25.8–34.8 [8 categories]; long=30.8–45.0 [6 categories]), function (SMC: short=1.1–2.4 [14 categories]; mid=1.1–2.0 [11 categories]; long=1.0–1.8 [10 categories]), and QoL (short=0.8–1.7 [7 categories]; mid=0.9–1.8 [6 categories]). Certainty varied widely. Accordingly, three recommendation groups were defined based on the availability of comparative evidence and presence of higher-certainty findings. The strongest recommendation group included strengthening, range-of-motion exercises, complex interventions and movement pattern retraining.

CONCLUSIONS A range of active treatments were superior to minimal intervention at each time point, so a wait-and-see approach should not be used, even in in the short-term. The most credible evidence was for interventions with a focus on strengthening, range-of-motion exercises, movement pattern retraining, and complex interventions. Clinicians should prioritise active management and deploy personalised clinical reasoning to tailor treatment to patient preferences and the available resources.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy is a common and troublesome condition, leading to pain, decreased function and quality-of-life that can be severe and is not self-limiting.

Many treatment options have proven efficacy, but the optimal management is unclear, leading to treatment variability and unsatisfactory outcomes.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

We estimated the improvements in pain, function and quality-of-life resulting from minimal interventions (wait-and-see or sham), confirming that the condition is not self-limiting.

Several active treatments had sufficient data showing they are superior to minimal intervention in the short (3 months), mid (6 months) and long-term (12 months)

Although the network meta-analysis did not provide a clear hierarchy between active treatments, certainty of evidence and data volume suggest that strengthening, range of motion exercises, movement pattern retraining and complex interventions are the treatments of choice.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This work was supported by the Private Physiotherapy Educational Foundation Silver Jubilee Award (QMUL reference 13569244). This work acknowledges the support of the National Institute for Health Research Barts Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR203330) for researchers employed at QMUL and Barts Health NHS trust. This work acknowledges the support of Podium Analytics and the Podium Institute, a charity with the mission of More Sport Less Injury. https://podiumanalytics.org The funders had no role in considering the study design, in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data or in the writing of the report.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors