Proprioceptive Exercises Combined With Strengthening Exercises Are Not Superior to Strengthening Exercises Alone for Shoulder Pain and Disability in Individuals With Chronic Rotator Cuff-Related Shoulder Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of combining proprioceptive exercises with strengthening exercises versus strengthening exercises alone, on shoulder pain and disability in individuals with chronic rotator cuff-related shoulder pain (RCRSP). DESIGN: Parallel group randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Seventy individuals with chronic RCRSP were randomly assigned to either the control group (n=35; muscle strengthening exercises) or the experimental group (n=35; muscle strengthening combined with proprioceptive exercises) for a 2-month program of supervised and home-based exercises. The primary outcome, the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), was assessed at baseline, 2 and 5 months, while the secondary outcomes: pain intensity, proprioception, isokinetic muscle strength, catastrophizing, kinesiophobia and self-efficacy, were evaluated at baseline and 2 months. A linear mixed model was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: There was no significant group-by-time interaction for the SPADI (p=0.25). Significant time effects, but no between-group differences, were found for improvements in pain intensity, kinesiophobia, catastrophizing, self-efficacy, kinesthesia, and joint position sense, while a decline in lateral rotator peak torque was noted. CONCLUSION: Combining proprioceptive with shoulder strengthening exercises did not lead to additional improvements across all outcomes in individuals with chronic RCRSP. The lack of a non-intervention group limits the ability to determine whether the improvements in both groups were due to the exercise programs or to natural recovery.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".