Do therapeutic exercises impact supraspinatus tendon thickness? Secondary analyses of the combined dataset from two randomized controlled trials in patients with rotator cuff-related shoulder pain
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The mechanistic response of rotator cuff tendons to exercises within the context of rotator cuff-related shoulder pain (RCRSP) remains a significant gap in current research. A greater understanding of this response can shed light on why individuals exhibit varying responses to exercise interventions. It can also provide information on the influence of certain types of exercise on tendons. The primary aim of this article is to explore if changes in supraspinatus tendon thickness (SSTT) ratio differ between exercise interventions (high load vs. low load). The secondary aims are to explore if changes in SSTT ratio differ between ultrasonographic tendinopathy subgroups (reactive vs. degenerative) and if there are associations between tendinopathy subgroups, changes in tendon thickness ratio, and clinical outcomes (disability). METHODS: This study comprises secondary analyses of the combined dataset from two randomized controlled trials that compared high and low-load exercises in patients with RCRSP. In those trials, different exercise interventions were compared: 1) progressive high-load strengthening exercises and 2) low-load strengthening with or without motor control exercises. In 1 trial, there was also a third group that was not allocated to exercises (education only). Ultrasound-assessed SSTT ratio, derived from comparing symptomatic and asymptomatic sides, served as the primary measure in categorizing participants into tendinopathy subgroups (reactive, normal and degenerative) at baseline. RESULTS: Data from 159 participants were analyzed. Two-way repeated measures ANOVAs revealed significant Group (P < .001) and Group × Time interaction (P < .001) effects for the SSTT ratio in different tendinopathy subgroups, but no Time effect (P = .63). Following the interventions, SSTT ratio increased in the "Degenerative" subgroup (0.14 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.09-0.19]), decreased in the "Reactive" subgroup (-0.11 [95% CI: -0.16 to -0.06]), and remained unchanged in the "Normal" subgroup (-0.01 [95% CI: -0.04 to 0.02]). There was no Time (P = .21), Group (P = .61), or Group × Time interaction (P = .66) effect for the SSTT ratio based on intervention allocation. Results of the linear regression did not highlight any significant association between the tendinopathy subgroup (P = .25) or change in SSTT ratio (P = .40) and change in disability score. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study suggest that, over time, SSTT in individuals with RCRSP tends to normalize, compared to the contralateral side, regardless of the exercise intervention. Different subgroups of symptomatic tendons behave differently, emphasizing the need to potentially consider tendinopathy subtypes in RCRSP research. Future adequately powered studies should investigate how those different tendinopathy subgroups may predict long-term clinical outcomes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,042 | 0,094 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,019 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».