OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the immediate effects of mobilization with movement (MWM) with sham technique on range of motion (ROM), muscle strength, and function in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome. METHODS: A randomized clinical study was performed. Participants (mean age ± standard deviation, 31 ± 8 years; 56% women) were divided into 2 groups: group 1 (n = 14), which received the MWM technique in the first 4 sessions and the sham technique in the last 4 sessions; and group 2 (n = 13), which was treated with the opposite order of treatment conditions described for group 1. Shoulder ROM, isometric peak force assessed with a handheld dynamometer, and function as determined through the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) questionnaires were collected at preintervention, interchange, and postintervention moments. RESULTS: Two-way analysis of variance revealed no significant group-by-time interaction for any outcome but did reveal a main time effect for shoulder external rotation (P = .04) and abduction (P = .01) ROM, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (P < .01), SPADI Pain (P < .01), SPADI Function (P < .01), and SPADI Total (P < .01). Only abduction movement and SPADI Pain overcame the clinical relevance threshold. The isometric peak force tests revealed no effects. CONCLUSION: The MWM technique was no more effective than a sham intervention in improving shoulder ROM during external rotation and abduction, pain, and function in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome. Copyright Â
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the immediate effects of mobilization with movement (MWM) with sham technique on range of motion (ROM), muscle strength, and function in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome. METHODS: A randomized clinical study was performed. Participants (mean age ± standard deviation, 31 ± 8 years; 56% women) were divided into 2 groups: group 1 (n = 14), which received the MWM technique in the first 4 sessions and the sham technique in the last 4 sessions; and group 2 (n = 13), which was treated with the opposite order of treatment conditions described for group 1. Shoulder ROM, isometric peak force assessed with a handheld dynamometer, and function as determined through the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) questionnaires were collected at preintervention, interchange, and postintervention moments. RESULTS: Two-way analysis of variance revealed no significant group-by-time interaction for any outcome but did reveal a main time effect for shoulder external rotation (P = .04) and abduction (P = .01) ROM, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (P < .01), SPADI Pain (P < .01), SPADI Function (P < .01), and SPADI Total (P < .01). Only abduction movement and SPADI Pain overcame the clinical relevance threshold. The isometric peak force tests revealed no effects. CONCLUSION: The MWM technique was no more effective than a sham intervention in improving shoulder ROM during external rotation and abduction, pain, and function in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome. Copyright Â