Clinically Important Improvements Observed in Patient-Reported Outcomes 2 Years After Exercise Therapy for Patients With Isolated Supraspinatus Tendon Tears
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe and predict patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and to investigate differences between individuals with a rotator cuff tear who were and were not successfully treated with a 12-week exercise therapy program. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort. SETTING: Orthopedic sports medicine clinical practice settings and departments of orthopedic surgery, physical therapy, and bioengineering at the University of Pittsburgh. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-two individuals, age ≥40 years with a symptomatic isolated supraspinatus tear. INTERVENTIONS: Individualized 12-week exercise therapy program and longitudinal follow-ups at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) PROs: Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) index (WORC) & Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), (2) shoulder range of motion (ROM) and strength, (3) rotator cuff tear size and location, (4) glenohumeral kinematics. RESULTS: Significant improvements in both PROs were observed at all time points when compared with baseline. At the 24-month follow-up, improvement greater than the minimally clinically important difference was noted for 78% of individuals for the WORC and 55% for the NPRS. Baseline predictors for 24-month change in WORC and an overall successful outcome were identified and included the baseline WORC score and the side-to-side difference in ROM for external rotation at 90 degrees abduction. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with symptomatic, isolated supraspinatus tears, managed with exercise therapy, experienced clinically important improvements in self-reported disability and more than half experienced a similar improvement in pain, at a 2-year follow-up. Baseline patient-reported outcomes measures and side-to-side differences passive ROM predicted 24-month success after exercise therapy. These findings may be useful in plan-of-care decision making.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".