Therapeutic Exercise and Orthopedic Manual Therapy for Impingement Syndrome: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of therapeutic exercise and orthopedic manual therapy for the treatment of impingement syndrome. DATA SOURCE: Reports up to October 2002 were located from MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), the TRIP database, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) using "shoulder" and "clinical trial"/"randomized controlled trial" as search terms. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if (1) they were a randomized controlled trial; (2) they were related to impingement syndrome, rotator cuff tendinitis, or bursitis; (3) one of the treatments included therapeutic exercise or manual therapy. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent observers reviewed the methodological quality of the studies using an assessment tool developed by the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group. Differences were resolved by consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven trials met our inclusion criteria. After consensus, the mean methodological score for all studies was 13.9 +/- 2.4 (of 24). Four studies of 7, including the 3 trials with the best methodological score (67%), suggested some benefit of therapeutic exercise or manual therapy compared with other treatments such as acromioplasty, placebo, or no intervention. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence to support the efficacy of therapeutic exercise and manual therapy to treat impingement syndrome. More methodologically sound studies are needed to further evaluate these interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it