Does the addition of motor control or strengthening exercises to education result in better outcomes for rotator cuff-related shoulder pain? A multiarm randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare the short-term, mid-term and long-term effects between three interventions (education only, education and strengthening exercises, education and motor control exercises) for rotator cuff-related shoulder pain (RCRSP) on symptoms and function. Methods 123 adults presenting with RCRSP took part in a 12-week intervention. They were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 intervention groups. Symptoms and function were evaluated at baseline and at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks and 24 weeks using the Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire ( Quick DASH) (primary outcome) and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC). Linear mixed modelling was used to compare the effects of the three programmes on the outcomes. Results After 24 weeks, between-group differences were −2.1 (-7.7 to 3.5) (motor control vs education), 1.2 (-4.9 to 7.4) (strengthening vs education) and −3.3 (-9.5 to 2.8) (motor control vs strengthening) for the Quick DASH and 9.3 (1.5 to 17.1) (motor control vs education), 1.3 (−7.6 to 10.2) (strengthening vs education) and 8.0 (−0.5 to 16.5) (motor control vs strengthening) for the WORC. There was a significant group-by-time interaction (p=0.04) with Quick DASH, but follow-up analyses did not reveal any clinically meaningful between-group differences. There was no significant group-by-time interaction (p=0.39) for the WORC. Between-group differences never exceeded the minimal clinically important difference of Quick DASH or WORC. Conclusion In people with RCRSP, the addition of motor control or strengthening exercises to education did not lead to larger improvements in symptoms and function compared with education alone. Further research should investigate the value of providing stepped care by identifying individuals who may only need education and those who would benefit from the addition of motor control or strengthening exercises. Trial registration number NCT03892603 .
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".