Comparison of corticosteroid injection, physiotherapy and combined treatment for patients with chronic subacromial bursitis – A randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate whether combination of corticosteroid subdeltoid injections and physiotherapy was more effective than either treatment alone in chronic subacromial bursitis. Design Prospective, three-arm randomised controlled trial. Setting Rehabilitation department of an academic hospital. Subjects Patients with chronic subacromial bursitis. Interventions Patients were divided into corticosteroid injection (N = 36), physiotherapy (N = 40) and combined (N = 35) groups. Two corticosteroid subdeltoid injections in corticosteroid group, 8-week physical therapy emphasising on therapeutic exercise in physiotherapy group, and combined both treatments in combined group. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measures were pain visual analogue scale and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index at 8 weeks after finishing treatment. The secondary outcome measures were active range of motion, Shoulder Disability Questionnaire, Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index, patient's evaluation of treatment effect, and symptom recurrence. Results Group comparison showed significant statistical difference in shoulder flexion ( P < 0.003) and patient's evaluation of treatment effect ( P < 0.001). The time and group interactions comparison revealed significant statistical differences in pain score ( P < 0.024), external rotation ( P < 0.044) and patient's evaluation of treatment effect ( P < 0.001). The above statistics were in favour of the corticosteroid and combined groups rather than physiotherapy group. The percentage of recurrence was 36.1, 7.5 and 17.1 in the corticosteroid, physiotherapy and combined groups, respectively ( P < 0.001). Conclusion Corticosteroid subdeltoid injection, or combined with physiotherapy, was superior to physiotherapy alone, but the recurrence rate was least in the physiotherapy group.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".