Patient-reported outcomes following a physiotherapy rehabilitation programme for atraumatic posterior shoulder subluxation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of research that describes the patient-reported benefits of physiotherapy rehabilitation for atraumatic posterior instability despite non-operative treatment being considered the initial treatment of choice. This retrospective case series review describes the patient-reported outcomes following a physiotherapy rehabilitation programme for atraumatic posterior shoulder instability. METHODS: Nineteen consecutive patients with a clinical diagnosis of atraumatic posterior shoulder subluxation completed our physiotherapy programme. All patients completed Oxford Instability Shoulder scores (OISS) and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) scores before and after physiotherapy intervention. RESULTS: Patients reported a statistically significant clinical improvement in the main outcome measures following physiotherapy intervention. The OISS showed a mean improvement of 18.6 points, whereas the WOSI score showed a mean improvement of 37.2%. Following physiotherapy rehabilitation, all patients reported that their shoulder did not prevent them from performing their work/studies or their chosen hobbies/sports. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the view that specialized physiotherapy rehabilitation is a valuable treatment option for atraumatic posterior shoulder instability and reveal significant clinically important improvements in patient-reported outcomes.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".