Shoulder External Rotator Eccentric Training versus General Shoulder Exercise for Subacromial Pain Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Shoulder pain affects up to 67% of the population at some point in their lifetime with subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS) representing a common etiology. Despite a plethora of studies there remains conflicting evidence for appropriate management of SAPS. Purpose: To compare outcomes, for individuals diagnosed with SAPS, performing a 6-week protocol of eccentric training of the shoulder external rotators (ETER) compared to a general exercise (GE) protocol. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial Methods: Forty-eight individuals (mean age 46.8 years +/-17.29) with chronic shoulder pain, and a clinical diagnosis of SAPS were randomized into either an experimental group performing ETER or a control group performing a GE program. The intervention lasted for six weeks, and outcomes were measured after three weeks, six weeks, and again at six months post intervention. Results: The primary outcome of function, measured by the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index, demonstrated a significant interaction effect derived from a multilevel hierarchical model accounting for repeated measures favoring the experimental group at week 3: 14.65 (p=.003), Week 6: 17.04 (p<.001) and six months: 15.12 (p=.007). After six months, secondary outcome measures were improved for Numeric Pain Rating Scale levels representing pain at worst (p=.006) and pain on average (p=0.02), external rotator (p<.001), internal rotator (p=0.02), and abductor strength (p<.001). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcome measures of Global Rating of Change, Active Range of Motion, the Upper Quarter Y Balance Test and strength ratios after six months. Conclusion: An eccentric program targeting the external rotators was superior to a general exercise program for strength, pain, and function after six months. The findings suggest eccentric training may be efficacious to improve self-report function and strength for those with SAPS. Level of Evidence: 2b
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".