Is the American Society of Shoulder and Elbow Therapists’ rehabilitation guideline better than standard care when applied to Bankart-operated patients? A controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is a difference in shoulder-related physical function and quality of life between postoperative rehabilitation patients receiving standard care and those receiving care according to the American Society of Shoulder and Elbow Therapists' rehabilitation guideline for arthroscopic anterior capsulolabral repair of the shoulder. DESIGN: Descriptive studies with comparison between a retrospective and a prospective cohort. SETTING: Municipal outpatient rehabilitation centre. PATIENTS: A total of 96 arthroscopic Bankart-operated patients. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 52 patients received standard care; 44 patients underwent rehabilitation according to the American Society of Shoulder and Elbow Therapists' rehabilitation guideline. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome variable was Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index. Secondary outcome measures were Patient-Specific Functional Scale, shoulder range of motion, return to work, return to sports, and costs. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in adjusted mean change scores between the standard care group and the guideline group in the primary outcome variable (Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index total = 574.85 vs. 644.48) or the secondary outcomes (Patient-Specific Functional Scale = 4.6 vs. 5.0; range of motion in forward flexion = 46.49° vs. 49.58°; external rotation in adduction = 28.58° vs. 34.18°; external rotation in abduction = 51.29° vs. 47.55°; weeks until return to work = 5.2 vs. 6.9; weeks until return to sports =13.9 vs. 13.1; costs = number of visits; 18.5 vs. 15.9). CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant between-group differences in shoulder-related physical function and quality of life between the standard care group and the guideline group, following Bankart operations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".