Activity- vs. structural-oriented treatment approach for frozen shoulder: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the short- and long-term effects of a structural-oriented (convential) with an activity-oriented physiotherapeutic treatment in patients with frozen shoulder. DESIGN: Double-blinded, randomized, experimental study. SETTING: Outpatient clinic. SUBJECTS: We included patients diagnosed with a limited range of motion and pain in the shoulder region, who had received a prescription for physiotherapy treatment, without additional symptoms of dizziness, a case history of headaches, pain and/or limited range of motion in the cervical spine and/or temporomandibular joint. INTERVENTIONS: The study group received treatment during the performance of activities. The comparison group was treated with manual therapy and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (conventional therapy). Both groups received 10 days of therapy, 30 minutes each day. MAIN MEASURES: Range of motion, muscle function tests, McGill pain questionnaire and modified Upper Extremity Motor Activity Log were measured at baseline, after two weeks of intervention and after a three-month follow-up period without therapy. RESULTS: A total of 66 patients were randomized into two groups: The activity-oriented group ( n = 33, mean = 44 years, SD = 16 years) including 20 male (61%) and the structural-oriented group ( n = 33, mean = 47 years, SD = 17 years) including 21 male (64%). The activity-oriented group revealed significantly greater improvements in the performance of daily life activities and functional and structural tests compared with the group treated with conventional therapy after 10 days of therapy and at the three-month follow-up ( p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Therapy based on performing activities seems to be more effective for pain reduction and the ability to perform daily life activities than conventional treatment methods.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".