The efficacy of conservative management of micro-traumatic posterior shoulder instability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Microtraumatic posterior shoulder instability (PSI) is characterized by symptomatic posterior translation of the glenohumeral joint. A common etiology is a gradual overload of glenohumeral joint structures. The recommend initial treatment for microtraumatic PSI is rehabilitation; however, the evidence to support this recommendation is limited. The aim of this study is to investigate the patient- reported outcome measures and return to sport success of participants with microtraumatic PSI who participate in a posterior instability rehabilitation program. Methods: In the single-group study design, 24 shoulders in 22 sporting participants (17 male, 5 females; mean age, 21.1 years, standard deviation 10.1 years) diagnosed with microtraumatic PSI undertook the Watson Posterior Instability Program (WIP-p) over 24 weeks. Outcome measures included the Melbourne Instability Shoulder Score and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 weeks. Failure of conservative management and time to return to sport was measured. Treatment effects were determined using linear mixed models, with 95% confidence intervals. Significance was set at 0.05. Results: < .001) on the Melbourne Instability Shoulder Score. For return to sport, 20 of the 22 (90.1%) participants returned to full activity at the 24-week time point, while two went on to have reconstructive surgery. Discussion and Conclusion: The WIP-p resulted in a high level of return to sport and significantly improved functional outcomes in patients with microtraumatic PSI. A small proportion of sporting participations with microtraumatic PSI may fail conservative rehabilitation and require surgical consideration.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".