Arthroscopic capsular shift surgery in patients with atraumatic shoulder joint instability: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of arthroscopic capsular shift surgery on pain and functional impairment for people with atraumatic shoulder (glenohumeral) joint instability. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial in a specialist secondary care facility. Patients aged 18 years and over who reported insecurity (apprehension) in their shoulder joint and had evidence of capsulolabral damage on arthroscopic examination were included. Patients were excluded if their shoulder apprehension symptoms were precipitated by a high velocity shoulder injury, they had bony or neural damage, a rotator cuff or labral tear, or previous surgery on the symptomatic shoulder. Sixty-eight participants were randomised and received diagnostic arthroscopy, followed by arthroscopic capsular shift or diagnostic arthroscopy alone. All participants received the same postoperative clinical care. The primary outcome was pain and functional impairment measured with the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index. The prespecified minimum clinically important effect was a reduction in pain and disability of 10.4 points. RESULTS: Mean reductions in pain and functional impairment for both groups were similar. Compared with diagnostic arthroscopy, arthroscopic capsular shift increased pain and functional impairment by means of 5 points (95% CI -6 to 16 points) at 6 months, 1 point (95% CI -11 to 13 points) at 12 months and 2 points (95% CI -12 to 17 points) at 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with diagnostic arthroscopy alone, arthroscopic capsular shift confers, at best, only minimal clinically important benefit in the medium term. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01751490.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".