MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767384416 · doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2017.10.013

Hydrodilatation With Corticosteroid for the Treatment of Adhesive Capsulitis: A Systematic Review

2017· review· en· W2767384416 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Catapano, Nimish Mittal, John Adamich, Dinesh Kumbhare, Harpreet Sangha

Bibliographic record

VenuePM&R · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapsulitisMedicineCorticosteroidRandomized controlled trialPlaceboSurgeryRange of motionPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Current evidence suggests that corticosteroid injection alone expedites the recovery of pain-free range of motion (ROM) in patients with adhesive capsulitis compared to physiotherapy or placebo. However, it remains unclear whether the addition of hydrodilatation with corticosteroid provides improvement in pain-free ROM as well as pain relief. OBJECTIVE: A review of the literature was conducted to determine whether the combined intervention of hydrodilatation and corticosteroid injection expedites restoration of pain-free ROM compared to a control treatment of corticosteroid injection in patients with adhesive capsulitis. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL were searched from database inception to January 2017. Relevant studies were determined as randomized controlled trials written in English, comparing the outcomes of hydrodilatation and corticosteroid injection to a control group treated with corticosteroid injection alone in patients with adhesive capsulitis. Two independent reviewers assessed manuscripts for study inclusion and extracted data. RESULTS: A total of 2276 studies were identified through the search, of which 6 randomized controlled studies (involving 410 shoulders) met criteria for inclusion in this review. Mean age ranged from 51-61 years, with mean symptom duration of 4-9 months. Studies varied significantly regarding the volume of injectate, anatomical injection approach, symptom duration, and the method of glenohumeral capsule distension (capsular rupture versus preservation). Two studies demonstrated clinically and statistically significant improvement in the combination group at 3-month follow-up, and one study demonstrated clinically significant improvement only in ROM and/or pain/functional scales, compared to 3 studies demonstrating no benefit when compared to corticosteroid injection alone. CONCLUSION: Combining hydrodilatation with corticosteroid injection potentially expedites recovery of pain-free ROM. The greatest benefit is experienced within the first 3 months of intervention. Differences in hydrodilatation techniques, inclusion of capsular preservation, anatomical approach, and length of symptoms may explain the variability in efficacy demonstrated. Further trials using larger sample sizes, better anatomical approaches, image guidance, and hydrodilatation techniques are required to determine the true nature of benefits of hydrodilatation with corticosteroid injection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.006
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePM&RSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207