Efficacy of Proprioceptive Exercises in Patients with Subacromial Impingement Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of proprioceptive exercises on shoulder proprioception, range of motion, pain, muscle strength, and function in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome. DESIGN: Sixty-one patients with subacromial impingement syndrome participated in this prospective, single-blind randomized controlled trial. All patients were randomly divided into two groups: control group (conventional physiotherapy, n = 30) and intervention group (proprioceptive exercise and conventional physiotherapy, n = 31). The primary outcome measures were sense of kinesthesia and active and passive repositioning for proprioception at 0 degrees and 10 degrees external rotation at 12 wks. The secondary outcome measures were pain at rest, at night, and during activities of daily living with the visual analog scale (0-10 cm), the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff index, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons index, range of motion, and isometric muscle strength at both 6 and 12 wks. RESULTS: After treatment, significant improvement was found in range of motion, pain, isometric muscle strength, kinesthesia at 0 degrees external rotation, and functional tests in both groups. The intervention group showed a significant improvement in kinesthesia at 10 degrees external rotation and active and passive repositioning at 10 degrees external rotation. When groups were compared, there were no statistically significant differences in any of the parameters at 12 wks. CONCLUSIONS: Although proprioceptive exercises may provide better proprioceptive acuity, no additional positive effect on other clinical parameters was observed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".