Treatment of Subacromial Impingement Syndrome: Platelet-Rich Plasma or Exercise Therapy? A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Subacromial impingement syndrome (SAIS) is the most common disorder of the shoulder. The evidence for the effectiveness of treatment options is inconclusive and limited. Therefore, there is a need for more evidence in this regard, particularly for long-term outcomes. HYPOTHESIS: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) would be an effective method in treating subacromial impingement. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: This was a single-blinded randomized clinical trial with 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-up. Sixty-two patients were randomly placed into 2 groups, receiving either PRP or exercise therapy. The outcome parameters were pain, shoulder range of motion (ROM), muscle force, functionality, and magnetic resonance imaging findings. RESULTS: Both treatment options significantly reduced pain and increased shoulder ROM compared with baseline measurements. Both treatments also significantly improved functionality. However, the treatment choices were not significantly effective in improving muscle force. Trend analysis revealed that in the first and third months, exercise therapy was superior to PRP in pain, shoulder flexion and abduction, and functionality. However, in the sixth month, only shoulder abduction and total Western Ontario Rotator Cuff score were significantly different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Both PRP injection and exercise therapy were effective in reducing pain and disability in patients with SAIS, with exercise therapy proving more effective.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".