MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414787849 · doi:10.2519/jospt.2025.13360

How Effective Are Nonsurgical Interventions for Work-Related Shoulder Pain? A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2025· review· en· W4414787849 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Meidinger, Marc-Olivier Dubé, Tobias Saueressig, Martine Gagnon, Anthony Lachance, Ève-Line Bussières, Jean‐Sébastien Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité LavalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionGrading (engineering)MEDLINESystematic reviewIntervention (counseling)Relative riskClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of nonsurgical interventions for work-related shoulder pain. DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Six databases and 2 clinical trial registries were searched, supplemented by manual searches and citation tracking. Eligible trials compared nonsurgical interventions for work-related shoulder pain. DATA SYNTHESIS: Outcomes of interest were pain intensity, physical functioning, return to work, and productivity loss. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0; certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. A random-effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis were performed. RESULTS: Of 8608 records identified, 24 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Four trials were included in meta-analysis. No trials were at low risk of bias. The evidence was very uncertain (GRADE) regarding the effect of exercises interventions (eg, strengthening, stretching, and endurance exercises) compared to no intervention on short-term pain intensity (standardized mean difference, –0.60; 95% confidence interval: –1.22, 0.03; 95% prediction interval: –1.83, 0.64; k = 4; n = 172). Reanalyzing using 3 alternative meta-analysis approaches for small-study meta-analyses yielded different results. The narrative synthesis provided no additional insights. CONCLUSION: The evidence was very uncertain about whether exercise interventions (strengthening, stretching, and endurance) provided a moderate short-term (<3 months) benefit for reducing pain compared with no intervention. These results should be interpreted cautiously due to the limited number of trials included in the meta-analysis and the inconsistent terminology for work-related shoulder pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2025;55(11):705-718. Epub 3 October 2025. doi:10.2519/jospt.2025.13360

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.175
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.175
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0340.045
Bibliometrics0.0140.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical TherapySame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207