MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effectiveness of surgical and non-surgical interventions for managing diabetic shoulder pain: a systematic review

2020· other· en· W6939757131 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt Joseph's Health CareWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionRotator cuffRandomized controlled trialCohortCohort studyQuality of life (healthcare)ModalitiesEvidence-based medicineShoulder surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This systematic review evaluated and compared the effectiveness of non-surgical and surgical interventions for managing shoulder pain in patients with diabetes. PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, Sport Discus, and Cochrane library were searched for studies published in the last 20 years. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that assessed shoulder pain in patients with diabetes and implemented one or a combination of non-surgical and surgical interventions were eligible for inclusion. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Structured Effectiveness Quality Evaluation Scale (SEQES) tool. Data extracted from the eligible studies included study design, patient characteristics, duration of symptoms, type of interventions, outcome measures used to assess pain, follow-up intervals, and research findings. A narrative synthesis with effect sizes (ES) or between-group differences was conducted. A total of 25 (14 non-surgical and 11 surgical) studies met the inclusion criteria. Six studies addressed physiotherapeutic interventions (three RCTs and three cohorts – ES = 0.07–1.3), three studies assessed the effect of steroid injections (two RCTs and one cohort – ES = 0.2–0.4), two cohorts addressed arthrographic capsular distension (between-group difference of 1.1 on Visual Analogue Scale), two cohorts addressed MUA, and one RCT addressed suprascapular nerve block (ES = 1–6). For the surgical studies, six cohorts addressed arthroscopic capsular release (ES = 0.2), three cohorts addressed arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ES = 0.05–0.5), and one cohort addressed arthroplasty (ES = 0.3). Moderate- to very-low-quality evidence suggests large effects of physiotherapy modalities plus exercise and suprascapular nerve block, and trivial to small effects for surgical interventions for improving shoulder pain in patients with diabetes. Future well-designed studies are needed to provide accurate estimates of the true effects of these interventions on improving shoulder pain in patients with diabetes.Implications For RehabilitationShoulder pain may lead to disability in patients with diabetes.We recommend the use of physiotherapy interventions to reduce shoulder pain.Corticosteroid injections are recommended for short-term shoulder pain relief. Shoulder pain may lead to disability in patients with diabetes. We recommend the use of physiotherapy interventions to reduce shoulder pain. Corticosteroid injections are recommended for short-term shoulder pain relief.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.011
Bibliometrics0.0100.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designSystematic review
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→French-language works237,207→