Summary of findings 2. Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF) compared to placebo for adhesive capsulitis (frozen shoulder).
| Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF) compared to placebo for adhesive capsulitis (frozen shoulder) | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with adhesive capsulitis (frozen shoulder) Settings: physical therapy clinic in high‐income country Intervention: Comparison: placebo | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Placebo | PEMF | |||||
|
Participant‐reported pain relief ≥ 30% Complete resolution of SPADI pain Follow‐up: end of 15 days treatment |
Study population1 |
RR 19.19 (1.25 to 294.21) |
32 (1 study) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2 | Absolute risk difference 75% (53% to 97% more); relative per cent change 1819% (25% to 29321% more) NNTB = 1 (1 to 2) |
|
| 83 per 1000 |
1000 per 1000 (104 to 1000) |
|||||
| Overall pain | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | No studies reported this outcome |
| Function Total recovery of joint function Follow‐up: end of 15 days treatment | Study population1 |
RR 14.24 (0.91 to 221.75) |
32 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2 | Absolute risk difference 55% (31% to 79% more); relative per cent change 1324% (9% fewer to 22075% more) NNTB not applicable. |
|
| 83 per 1000 |
1000 per 1000 (76 to 1000) |
|||||
| Global assessment of treatment success | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | No studies reported this outcome |
| Active shoulder abduction | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | No studies reported this outcome |
| Quality of life | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | No studies reported this outcome |
| Adverse events | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | No studies reported this outcome |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 Risk of treatment success in placebo group in Battisti 2007 used as the assumed control group risk. 2 High risk of attrition bias because a high proportion of the placebo group withdrew due to lack of response to treatment, which is likely to bias the results of the trial in favour of the active treatment group; 95% CI very wide.