The Efficacy of Exercise Therapy for Rotator Cuff–Related Shoulder Pain According to the FITT Principle: A Systematic Review With Meta-analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of exercise interventions with differing frequency, intensity, type, and time (FITT) on shoulder pain and disability in people with rotator cuff–related shoulder pain (RCRSP). DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analyses. LITERATURE SEARCH: Electronic searches were conducted up to May 2023. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of exercise interventions differing in prescription according to the FITT principle, in people with RCRSP. DATA SYNTHESIS: Separate meta-analyses comparing exercise type (specific versus nonspecific exercise) and intensity (high versus low) were conducted. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-two RCTs (n = 1281) were included. There was moderate-certainty evidence that motor control exercise programs, when compared to nonspecific exercise programs, significantly reduced disability in the short (SMD: −0.29; 95% CI: −0.51, −0.07; n = 323; 7 RCTs) and medium terms (SMD: −0.33; 95% CI: −0.57, −0.09; n = 286; 5 RCTs), but not pain in the short term (SMD: −0.19; 95% CI: −0.41, 0.03; n = 323; 7 RCTs). Uncertainties remained regarding other exercise types (eccentric and scapula-focused exercise programs) versus nonspecific exercise programs, and exercise intensity due to low- to very low–certainty evidence. No trials were identified that compared different frequencies or times. CONCLUSION: For adults with RCRSP, motor control exercise programs were probably slightly superior to nonspecific exercise programs. However, it is unclear if the effects were due to motor control exercise or to other program characteristics such as progression and tailoring. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(8):499-512. Epub 7 June 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12453
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 | 0.030 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.051 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".