Investigating the effects of mobilization with movement and exercise on pain modulation processes in shoulder pain – a single cohort pilot study with short-term follow up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between manual therapy and exercise and pain modulation and clinical characteristics in people with musculoskeletal shoulder pain. METHODS: This is a prospective, longitudinal, single cohort pilot study. People with shoulder pain for longer than 6 weeks underwent 4 weeks of glenohumeral mobilization with movement and shoulder exercises. Measures of pain modulation, shoulder pain, disability, range of motion and psychosocial factors were assessed at baseline and immediately after the 4-week period of treatment. Treatment effectiveness was assessed through parametric, non-parametric and multilevel modeling statistics. RESULTS: Twenty-three individuals participatedwith no loss to follow-up. Significant and meaningful improvements in shoulder pain (NRS mean change 1.6/10, 95% CI 0.4 to 2.7), disability (SPADI mean change 20.5/100, 95% CI 13.1 to 27.9) and range of motion (mean change 33°, 95% CI 23 to 43°) were observed following treatment. Statistical but non-clinically meaningful changes were observed in temporal summation of pain (mean change 0.3/10, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.4) and anxiety (mean change 0.86/21, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.55). Significant reductions were observed in temporal summation of pain (mean change 0.3/10, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.4) and anxiety (mean change 0.86/21, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.55), however these were not considered clinically important. No association was found between clinical characteristics and sensory measures. No association was found between clinical characteristics and sensory measures. CONCLUSION: Glenohumeral mobilization with movement and exercise did not improve pain modulation, despite improvements in pain, function and range of motion, in people with shoulder pain.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".