One-year effectiveness of high-load compared with low-load strengthening exercise on self-reported function in patients with hypermobile shoulders: a secondary analysis from a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the long-term effectiveness of high-load versus low-load strengthening exercise on self-reported function in patients with hypermobility spectrum disorder (HSD) and shoulder symptoms. METHODS: A secondary analysis of a superiority, parallel-group, randomised trial (balanced block randomisation 1:1, electronic concealment) including adult patients (n=100) from primary care with HSD and shoulder pain and/or instability ≥3 months. Patients received 16 weeks of shoulder exercises (three sessions/week): HEAVY (n=50, full-range, high-load, supervised twice/week) or LIGHT (n=50, neutral/mid-range, low-load, supervised three times in total). The 1-year between-group difference in change in self-reported function was measured using the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI, scale 0-2100, 0=best). Secondary outcomes were self-reported measures including changes in shoulder-related symptoms, function, emotions and lifestyle, quality of life, patient-perceived effect, treatment utility and adverse events. A blinded analyst conducted the analyses using linear mixed model repeated measurements analysis. RESULTS: One-year data were available in 86 out of 100 participants (79% women, mean age 37.8 years) (LIGHT 84%, HEAVY 88%). The mean WOSI score between-group difference favoured HEAVY (-92.9, 95% CI -257.4 to 71.5, p=0.268) but was not statistically significant. The secondary outcomes were mostly inconclusive, but patients in HEAVY had larger improvement in the WOSI emotions subdomain (-36.3; 95% CI -65.4 to -7.3, p=0.014). Patient-perceived effect favoured HEAVY anchored in WOSI-emotions (55% vs 31%, p=0.027) and WOSI-lifestyle (50% vs 29%, p=0.042). CONCLUSION: High-load shoulder strengthening exercise was not superior to low-load strengthening exercise in improving self-reported function at 1 year. High-load strengthening exercise may be more effective in improving patient emotions about shoulder pain and function, but more robust data are needed to support these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03869307.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".