Introduction: The aim of paper is to check how many preliminary reports (PR) reach a long-term publication (LT), and analyse differences in outcomes and complications between them.
Methods: A literature search was performed to identify shoulder preliminary or early reports. Fifty one papers fulfilled criteria and were categorized for paper topic. Bibliographic searches were undertaken to find LT on the topic from the same author or research group. Outcomes and complications reported in PR were recorded and compared to those reported in LT.
Results: Ten out of 51 PR (19.61 %) were followed by a LT with minimum follow-up of five years, by the same authors. Complication and reintervention rate were higher in the LT compared to PR (p < 0.05). Results published on PR were better than results published on LT even though these differences did not reach significance (p = 0.08).
Discussion: PR may represent the fastest way to spread new findings. However, concerns regarding short-term follow-up, small sample size bias and decrease in outcomes over time can discourage promising preliminary results.
Conclusions: The vast majority of preliminary reports never reached a LT follow-up paper. Preliminary reports underestimate complications and tend to overestimate outcomes.
Keywords: Complications; Early results; Long-term paper; Outcomes; Preliminary reports; Short-term.