OBJECTIVE: To update an existing systematic review of randomized clinical trials evaluating the clinical effectiveness of non-surgical management interventions for people with primary frozen shoulder in terms of pain, movement, self-reported function and disability, quality of life, recovery time, return to work and recreation, and adverse events. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane CENTRAL, SCI and MEDLINE, CENTRAL between 1 January 2010 and June 2017, plus reference lists of included trials and trial registers. Abstracts were independently screened by 2 reviewers and discussed. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers evaluated eligibility. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another. Two reviewers evaluated risk of bias. Meta-analyses were not appropriate. Narrative analyses were performed for trials evaluated as low risk of bias. RESULTS: Thirty trials were included, with the majority of studies evaluated as being at high risk of potential bias. Only 4 trials were evaluated as being at low risk of bias and this, plus the variety of participants included/excluded in trials and the variety of methods, interventions and outcomes used across the trials provided limited new evidence to inform the non-surgical management and treatment of people with frozen shoulder. CONCLUSION: Substantial evidence gaps remain for the non-surgical treatment of people with frozen shoulder.
OBJECTIVE: To update an existing systematic review of randomized clinical trials evaluating the clinical effectiveness of non-surgical management interventions for people with primary frozen shoulder in terms of pain, movement, self-reported function and disability, quality of life, recovery time, return to work and recreation, and adverse events. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane CENTRAL, SCI and MEDLINE, CENTRAL between 1 January 2010 and June 2017, plus reference lists of included trials and trial registers. Abstracts were independently screened by 2 reviewers and discussed. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers evaluated eligibility. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another. Two reviewers evaluated risk of bias. Meta-analyses were not appropriate. Narrative analyses were performed for trials evaluated as low risk of bias. RESULTS: Thirty trials were included, with the majority of studies evaluated as being at high risk of potential bias. Only 4 trials were evaluated as being at low risk of bias and this, plus the variety of participants included/excluded in trials and the variety of methods, interventions and outcomes used across the trials provided limited new evidence to inform the non-surgical management and treatment of people with frozen shoulder. CONCLUSION: Substantial evidence gaps remain for the non-surgical treatment of people with frozen shoulder.
Authors: Michel Gcam Mertens; Mira Meeus; Olivier Verborgt; Eric H M Vermeulen; Ruud Schuitemaker; Karin M C Hekman; Donald H van der Burg; Filip Struyf Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2021-09-06 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Marta Aguilar-Rodríguez; Lirios Dueñas; Mercè Balasch I Bernat; Mira Meeus; Filip Struyf; Enrique Lluch Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Mattia Salomon; Chiara Pastore; Filippo Maselli; Mauro Di Bari; Raffaello Pellegrino; Fabrizio Brindisino Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-07 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Fabrizio Brindisino; Elena Silvestri; Chiara Gallo; Davide Venturin; Giovanni Di Giacomo; Annalise M Peebles; Matthew T Provencher; Tiziano Innocenti Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2022-05-21
Authors: Alessandro de Sire; Francesco Agostini; Andrea Bernetti; Massimiliano Mangone; Marco Ruggiero; Stefano Dinatale; Alessandro Chiappetta; Marco Paoloni; Antonio Ammendolia; Teresa Paolucci Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2022-08-19 Impact factor: 2.832