MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6987374067

Subacromial pain syndrome : an experimental clinical investigation in primary care

2022· article· en· W6987374067 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShouldersShoulder Impingement SyndromeRotator cuffRehabilitationPrimary careMedical diagnosisUpper limbRandomized controlled trialManual therapy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis presents the desired management for patients with Subacromial Pain Syndrome (SAPS) in primary care and consists of four papers based on data from two randomized controlled trials. Background: SAPS is a multifactorial diagnosis and one of the most common shoulder problems in patients seeking physical therapy in primary care. The diagnosis is set clinically, and therefore it is important that physiotherapists know how to examine the patients to set the diagnosis at an early stage, to further motivate and guide the patients to best treatment. Today, graded exercise therapy is consensus on the treatment for these patients. Non- steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids and operative treatment have been debated for treating this group of patients. Arthroscopic subacromial decompression together with post-operative rehabilitation is in most cases only recommended if non- operative treatment has been unsuccessful. Despite agreement on graded exercise therapy, there is still unknown how to carry out exercise programs to optimize the treatment for SAPS patients in clinical practice. Aim: The overall aim was to evaluate the efficacy of a standardized progressive exercise program for the rotator cuff and scapular stabilizers supervised by a physiotherapy in a clinic or performed as a home training program, and to investigate whether an addition of joint mobilization could further improve clinical outcome. A second aim was to compare the imaging findings of both shoulders in patients with unilateral SAPS. A third aim was to study if a one- question score correlated with more extensive outcome scores. Methods: A total of 170 patients, mean age 45 years, diagnosed with SAPS were randomized to different treatment groups such as physiotherapy guided exercises (Study 1) or home-based training (Study II), with or without joint mobilization or, to a control group that did not receive any treatment. The diagnosis was set based on clinical examination by a physiotherapist according to different recommended clinical tests. Furthermore, the patients were examined with diagnostic musculoskeletal ultrasound (Study III). A description of the ultrasound findings of both the symptomatic and non-symptomatic shoulder were performed (Study III). The patients were also evaluated with the Constant-Murley score (C- M score), Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score at baseline and at three- and six-months follow-up (Study IV). The SANE score consists of only one question whereas the other scores are more detailed and therefore more time consuming to complete. A test for a possible correlation between these scores was performed (Study IV). Results: Shoulder function improved in all groups over time. Based on the C-M score all patients with SAPS significantly improved their shoulder function with guided exercise when compared to no treatment (Study I), but not when comparing home training to no treatment (Study II). In the subscale pain both intervention groups reported less pain than the control group at six weeks, three and six months (Study I) and at three months with home training (Study II). Add-on joint mobilization resulted in decreased pain in active range of motion at six weeks and at three months in comparison with guided exercise and no treatment in Study I (p<0.05) and at three and six months compared to home training or no treatment in Study II (p<0.05). Ultrasound anomalies were seen in both shoulders and increased with age (p<0.05), however more frequently on the affected side (p<0.05), where bursal thickening was the most common finding and Supraspinatus the most affected muscle (Study III). The one question SANE score correlated well with more extensive scores at the three- (r= 0.609- 0.692) and six-month (r= 0.787- 0.793) follow-up (Study IV). Conclusions: Guided exercise was the best choice in patients with SAPS evaluated with the C-M Score. Add-on joint mobilization in the beginning of a treatment period, led to decreased pain. Ultrasound findings were seen in both shoulders in patients with unilateral SAPS and must be taken into consideration when diagnosing SAPS. The SANE score, a one question score may replace more extensive scores when evaluating the progress of the treatment in non-operatively treated patients with SAPS. List of scientific papers I. Guided exercises with or without joint mobilization or no treatment in patients with subacromial pain syndrome: a clinical trial. Anna Eliason, Marita L Harringe, Björn Engström, Suzanne Werner. J Rehabil Med. 2021 May 11;53(5):jrm00190. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2806 II. Home training with or without joint mobilization compared to no treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Anna Eliason, Suzanne Werner, Björn Engström, Marita L Harringe. Phys Ther Sci. 2022 Feb;34(2):153-160. https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.34.153 III. Bilateral ultrasound findings in patients with unilateral subacromial pain syndrome. Anna Eliason, Marita L Harringe, Björn Engström, Kerstin Sunding, Suzanne Werner. Physiother Theory Pract. 2021 Aug 17;1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2021.1962462 IV. A single assessment numeric evaluation score may be a time efficient rating scale in patients with unilateral subacromial pain syndrome. Anna Eliason, Suzanne Werner, Björn Engström, Marita L Harringe. [Submitted]

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicShoulder Injury and Treatment→French-language works237,207→