Physiotherapy treatment for atraumatic recurrent shoulder instability: early results of a specific exercise protocol using pathology-specific outcome measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recurrent shoulder instability is usually caused by a traumatic event resulting in structural pathology, although a small subgroup of patients experience symptomatic recurrent shoulder instability without trauma. These patients are usually treated non-operatively but limited evidence exists regarding effective conservative management. In particular, there is a lack of reproducible exercise regimes and none that have been tested with condition-specific outcome measures. METHODS: A service evaluation was conducted over a 15-month period to assess our current treatment protocol used in the management of patients with atraumatic recurrent shoulder instability. The regime is reproducible with target-led progression milestones. Oxford Instability Shoulder Scores (OISS) and Western Ontario Shoulder Index (WOSI) scores were compared between baseline and final follow-up. RESULTS: Eighteen consecutive patients were included with mean follow-up of 4.5 months (range 1.35 months to 11.77 months). A statistically significant improvement was seen in both outcome measures. Mean OISS improved by 16.67 points (confidence interval: 12.34 to 20.99; p < 0.001). Mean WOSI improved by 36.76% (confidence interval: 28.46 to 45.06; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: For this small group of patients with recurrent atraumatic shoulder instability, the Derby Shoulder Instability Programme produced significant improvements over the short term, with a high level of patient compliance. This is the first study to include pathology-specific patient-reported outcome measures to assess outcomes from a specific and reproducible exercise regime in this group of patients. The findings support further research to evaluate the exercise protocol in a larger group of patients over the longer term.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".