A neuromuscular exercise programme versus standard care for patients with traumatic anterior shoulder instability: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (the SINEX study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anterior shoulder dislocation is a common injury and may have considerable impact on shoulder-related quality of life (QoL). If not warranted for initial stabilising surgery, patients are mostly left with little to no post-traumatic rehabilitation. This may be due to lack of evidence-based exercise programmes. In similar, high-impact injuries (e.g. anterior cruciate ligament tears in the knee) neuromuscular exercise has shown large success in improving physical function and QoL. Thus, the objective of this trial is to compare a nonoperative neuromuscular exercise shoulder programme with standard care in patients with traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations (TASD). METHODS/DESIGN: Randomised, assessor-blinded, controlled, multicentre trial. Eighty patients with a TASD will be recruited from three orthopaedic departments in Denmark. Patients with primary or recurrent anterior shoulder dislocations due to at least one traumatic event will be randomised to 12 weeks of either a standardised, individualised or physiotherapist-supervised neuromuscular shoulder exercise programme or standard care (self-managed shoulder exercise programme). Patients will be stratified according to injury status (primary or recurrent). Primary outcome will be change from baseline to 12 weeks in the patient-reported QoL outcome questionnaire, the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). DISCUSSION: This trial will be the first study to compare the efficacy and safety of two different nonoperative exercise treatment strategies for patients with TASD. Moreover, this is also the first study to investigate nonoperative treatment effects in patients with recurrent shoulder dislocations. Lastly, this study will add knowledge to the shared decision-making process of treatment strategies for clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02371928 . Registered on 9 February 2015 at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Protocol Registration System.
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 | 0.020 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.007 |
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".