Assessment of proprioceptive exercises in the treatment of rotator cuff disorders in nursing professionals: a randomized controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Shoulder pain in nursing professionals may lead to limitations in occupational and daily activities and consequently interfere with quality of life. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of two physical therapy programs which differed in the proprioceptive exercises used on the nursing professionals with rotator cuff disorder, according to quality of life, work satisfaction indicators, and pain intensity. METHOD: This study was an experimental, randomized, prospective, comparative trial with quantitative data analysis. The data sampling was carried out between the months of June 2010 and July 2011 by means of a questionnaire containing socio-demographic and professional information, the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC), the Occupational Stress Indicator (OSI), and the Visual Numeric Scale (VNS). Based on randomization, subjects were divided into two groups. Group 1 (control) was submitted to stretching and strengthening exercises and cryotherapy. Group 2 (experimental) was treated with the same protocol as the control group, with the addition of proprioception exercises. The data was analyzed by means of the Statistical Package for the Social Science version 16.0 for Windows. RESULTS: After physical therapy intervention, significant reduction in pain levels occurred in both groups, with a significant improvement in quality of life for Group 2. No changes were observed in the work satisfaction indicators after the two types of physical therapy interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The proprioceptive exercises were important in the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders, however the results did not allow us to determine which treatment was the most effective as there was no significant difference between groups.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".