Group format rehabilitation is equally effective as individual therapy in patients with surgically repaired rotator cuff tears
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Does group physiotherapy methods produce different results when compared with individual physiotherapy in persons with surgically repaired rotator cuff tears? No studies to date have examined the feasibility or effectiveness of such therapy formats. Given the prevalence of rotator cuff tears, a study examining group format therapy is warranted and can produce evidence to transform care for rotator cuff tear rehabilitation. METHODS: We analyzed the electronic medical records of persons that underwent rotator cuff repair surgery followed by the prescribedpost-surgical physiotherapy at Southlake Regional Health Centre. Both groups were provided standard physiotherapy intervention protocol for post-operative rotator cuff tear. Active range of motion (AROM), quick disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (Q-DASH) measures, and efficiency measures were examined for differences between groups. RESULTS: No significant differences between AROM (abduction p = .92, lateral rotation p = .64, and flexion p = 1.00) and Q-DASH (p = .62) measures between groups were observed at discharge. Overall, group therapy participants required a greater number of visits (p = .000); however, when separated by age groups, only the 60- to 69-year-old participants significantly differed in number of visits between groups (p = .000), whereas no difference was observed in the 50- to 59-year-old participants (p = .14). CONCLUSION: Group format physiotherapy may be equally effective as individual formats in improving AROM and functional outcomes of participants with surgically repaired rotator cuff tears. Further research is needed to determine the optimal age range for group therapy interventions in this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; 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".