Surgery for shoulder impingement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Shoulder impingement is one of the most common nontraumatic upper limb causes of disability in adults. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of surgical intervention in comparison with nonoperative or sham treatments in patients with shoulder impingement in terms of both pain and functional outcomes. METHODS: statistic. Functional outcome scores were presented along with minimal clinically important differences to provide clinical context for findings. RESULTS: = 1062 patients) were included in this review. Eligible patients had a mean age of 48 (standard deviation ± 4) years and 45% were men. The pooled treatment effect of surgical intervention for shoulder impingement did not demonstrate any benefit to surgery with respect to pain relief (mean difference -0.07, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.26) or short-term functional outcomes (standardized mean difference -0.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.27 to 0.08). Surgical intervention did result in a small statistically significant but clinically unimportant improvement in long-term functional outcomes (standardized mean difference 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.41). INTERPRETATION: Evidence suggests surgical intervention has little, if any, benefit for impingement pathology in the middle-aged patient. Further research is required to identify those patients who will reliably benefit from surgical intervention as well as optimal conservative treatment strategies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.078 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".