MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981510068 · doi:10.1002/pmrj.12268

Effectiveness of Dextrose Prolotherapy for Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review

2019· review· en· W2981510068 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Catapano, Kailia Zhang, Nimish Mittal, Harpreet Sangha, Kentaro Onishi, Darren de

Bibliographic record

VenuePM&R · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProlotherapyMedicineTendinopathyRotator cuffPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectSurgeryTendonInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and evaluate the efficacy and complication profile of prolotherapy using hyperosmolar dextrose solution injection for rotator cuff tendinopathy. LITERATURE SURVEY: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from inception to 1 July, 2019). METHODOLOGY: A comprehensive search was completed to identify randomized controlled trials addressing prolotherapy using hyperosmolar dextrose solution for rotator cuff tendinopathy. Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts, and then extracted data from eligible studies. All reported outcome measures and complications were analyzed descriptively. SYNTHESIS: Five studies satisfied inclusion criteria. Included studies analyzed a total of 272 participants with a final follow-up ranging from 6 weeks to 12 months. Prolotherapy differed greatly among studies. Two studies used a multisite enthesis injection protocol while the other three used ultrasound-guided protocols. Two of the studies used an intrasubstance supraspinatus injection and three used a supraspinatus enthesis injection. Control groups consisted of nonoperative rehabilitation including physical therapy and medical management in three studies, supraspinatus saline enthesis injection in one study, and corticosteroid injection in one study. There was statistically significant improvement in pain intensity with multisite injection protocols compared to physical therapy and medical management in both studies. Ultrasound-guided supraspinatus injection trials did not find any statistically significant difference in pain intensity, range of motion, strength, function, or ultrasound characteristics compared to controls of enthesis saline injection or corticosteroid. The complication rate was low, with only 6/272 participants experiencing adverse events consisting of transient increase in pain for 1 to 2 days postintervention. CONCLUSIONS: Prolotherapy with hyperosmolar dextrose solution is a potentially effective adjuvant intervention to physical therapy for patients with rotator cuff tendinopathy ranging from tendinosis to partial-thickness and small full-thickness tears. Further studies are necessary to determine effects in subpopulations as well as optimal technique including dextrose concentration, volume, and location.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.008
Bibliometrics0.0140.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.347 · 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

Citations36
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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