Comparison of Corticosteroids vs Conventional Physical Therapy for Management of Adhesive Capsulitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the role of corticosteroids and conventional physical therapy for management of adhesive capsulitis Methodology: This comparative study was conducted in Orthopedic Department, Combined Military Hospital Abbottabad. March 2022 to February 2023. Patient of active adhesive capsulitis of shoulder joint diagnosed by orthopedic surgeon were recruited. Patients in group A received single shot of methylprednisolone with local anesthesia with in the joint cavity while group B received conventional physical therapy at rehab department of our hospital. Pain scores via visual analogue scale and range of motion via goniometer was compared in both groups at baseline and at 8 weeks of treatment. Results: A total of 160 patients of adhesive capsulitis were recruited. Mean age was 42.55±10.96 years. 70 (43.7%) patients were female while 90 (56.3%) were male. Baseline pain scores and range of motion parameters were not statistically significant between the two comparison groups. At the end of 8 weeks mean pain scores were statistically significantly low in patients who took intra-articular corticosteroids as compared to those who underwent physiotherapy sessions (p-value<0.001). Range of motion parameters were also statistically significantly better in patients who took corticosteroids as compared to those who underwent physiotherapy (p-value<0.001). Conclusion: Use of corticosteroids emerged as a better option for treatment of pain and restricted range of motion in patients of adhesive capsulitis when compared to routine physiotherapy offered in our clinical settings. Keywords: Adhesive Capsulitis; Corticosteroids; Efficacy; Physiotherapy
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".