MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417365446 · doi:10.2519/jospt.2025.13445

Addressing Shoulder Weakness in Individuals With Rotator Cuff–Related Shoulder Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

2025· article· en· W4417365446 on OpenAlexafffund
Botao Zhang, Ignacio Raguzzi, Frédérique Dupuis, Silvia Gianola, Jane Morgan‐Daniel, Jean‐Sébastien Roy, Federico Pozzi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesArthritis Society
KeywordsRotator cuffRehabilitationPsychological interventionStrength trainingWeaknessRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalExternal rotationCohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effects of rehabilitation interventions on strength in people with rotator cuff–related shoulder pain (RCRSP). DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: Seven databases were searched from inception to April 2024. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Clinical trials or cohort studies reporting the effects of interventions lasting at least 6 weeks on objective strength outcomes in adults with RCRSP were included. Studies were excluded if they involved adults with other shoulder-related pathologies, focused exclusively on rotator cuff tears, or included participants who had undergone shoulder surgery. DATA SYNTHESIS: We grouped strength testing results from individual studies according to the direction of the strength test. Meta-analyses were conducted using standardized within-group mean difference from baseline to primary follow-up for each study intervention arm. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were included in the meta-analysis. Rehabilitation interventions had a moderate effect on shoulder external rotation strength (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39, 0.74; I 2 = 78%; P < .01) and a small effect on shoulder abduction (SMD, 0.47; 95% CI: 0.32, 0.63; I 2 = 54%; P < .01), internal rotation (SMD, 0.41; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.52; I 2 = 25%; P < .08), flexion (SMD, 0.25; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.49; I 2 = 0%; P = .46), and scaption (SMD, 0.48; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.70; I 2 = 35%; P = .14) strength. Interventions that included strength training or active exercises had small-to-moderate effects on all strength outcomes. Interventions without exercises or strength training had no effects. CONCLUSION: Rehabilitation interventions improved strength in people with RCRSP. Interventions that incorporated active exercises or strength training are recommended to address strength deficits in people with RCRSP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2026;56(2):67-84. Epub 16 December 2025. doi:10.2519/jospt.2025.13445

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0250.041
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.297 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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