| Ainsworth (2006)24
|
Oxford Shoulder Score |
SF36 |
| Outcome measured at 12 weeks after the start of the programme and compared to baseline measurements |
Mean improvement 10 points |
Pain: |
|
(range 3–16) |
Mean improvement 22 points |
|
Mean at baseline: 34.2 |
Role limitation due to physical health: |
|
Mean at 3 months: 23.6 |
Mean 10‐point improvement |
|
|
Role limitation due to emotional health: |
|
|
Mean 23‐point decline |
|
|
General health: |
|
|
Mean 9‐point decline |
| Bokor et al (1993)25
|
Pain |
Range of movement: |
| Final evaluation (mean 7.6 years after onset, range 3.7–12 years) |
39 patients (74%) none or slight pain |
Mean elevation at initial consultation 121° |
| 80 patients initially evaluated |
[2 patients at initial presentation] |
Mean elevation at follow up: 149° |
| 53 included in final analysis |
Little or no pain at follow‐up |
Mean external rotation range increased by 8° |
| 34 patients reviewed by questionnaire and physical examination |
24/28 (86%) patients experiencing pain <3 months |
UCLA Shoulder Score: |
| 19 patients by telephone interview only |
6/9 (67%) patients experiencing pain 3–6 months |
(34 patients assessed) |
|
9/16 (51%) patients experiencing pain >6 months |
Initial mean score 14.6 |
|
Subjective weakness |
Final mean score 28.1 |
|
42/53 (79%) at initial consultation |
19 patients (56%) had a satisfactory result |
|
experienced moderate or severe weakness. |
Greatest improvement in group treated within 3 months of onset. Least in group treated after 6 months of onset |
|
18/53 (34%) at follow‐up |
|
|
Activities of daily living |
|
|
At initial consultation 25% could perform ADL |
|
|
with little or no compromise. |
|
|
At final consultation 77%. |
|
| Goldberg et al (2001)26
|
Simple Shoulder Test |
14/45 (30%) experienced worsening |
|
Initial consultation 5.6 (SD = 3.2) |
5/47 (11%) remained unchanged |
|
Final consultation 7.0 (SD = 3.8) |
Predicating outcome |
|
Mean efficacy 1.4 (SD = 3.6) |
Dominance |
|
Responsiveness to nonoperative treatment |
Patients with symptoms in dominant shoulder were more likely to improve (p = 0.02) |
|
determined to be low. |
Tucking shirt behind back |
|
Only two factors of the SST had significantly |
Patients who initially had difficulty performing this movement were more likely to improve (p = 0.04) |
|
improved (p<0.01): |
|
|
– ability to sleep on affected side |
|
|
– ability to place hand behind head |
|
|
SF36 |
|
|
Significant improvement (p = 0.01) in comfort score |
|
|
Vitality, physical function, general health, |
|
|
physical component summary decreased significantly. |
|
|
27/46 (59%) experienced improvement |
|
| Hawkins and Dunlop (1995)27
|
Constant–Murley Scores |
Of the 6 components of the C‐M Score (pain, function, positioning, strength, range of movement, total score) there were no significant differences between Groups 1 and 2 on the initial measurement. At follow‐up there were no significant differences for pain, function, positioning, range of movement scores. There were significant differences in favour of Group 1 for strength (p = 0.008) and total score (p = 0.038) |
| 21 patients continued with conservative treatment (Group 1) |
Group 1 |
Patient satisfaction |
| 12 “dissatisfied patients” eventually elected to have surgery (at a mean 13 months after commencing conservative programme, range 2 months–3.5 years); an additional 2 patients who elected not to have surgery were also dissatisfied with conservative treatment (group 2) |
Initial |
(using ASES) |
|
14 good to excellent (75–100 points) |
Impairment measures (strength, muscle wasting, range of movement) did not correlate with patient satisfaction. Pain reduction, reduced analgesia, improved sleep, improved recreation, most strongly correlated with improved patient satisfaction |
|
5 fair (50–74 points) |
Patients reporting loss of sleep and, to a lesser extent, compensation claim issues, at the initial assessment were predictors of an unsatisfactory outcome |
|
0 poor (<50 points) |
|
|
Final |
|
|
18 good to excellent |
|
|
1 fair |
|
|
0 poor |
|
|
Group 2 |
|
|
Initial |
|
|
8 good to excellent |
|
|
2 fair |
|
|
4 poor |
|
|
Final |
|
|
8 good to excellent |
|
|
2 fair |
|
|
4 poor |
|
| Heers et al (2005)28
|
Modified Constant–Murley Score |
Range of movement: |
|
(maximum score 95 points) |
External rotation |
|
Group I Mean increase 13.0 (SD = 7.9) p = 0.001 |
Group I Mean increase 7.5° (SD = 8.7°) p<0.02 |
|
Group II Mean increase 13.2 (SD = 11.4) p‐0.002 |
Group II Mean increase 6.1° (SD = 7.8°) p<0.03 |
|
Group III Mean increase 17.5 (SD = 6.6) p = 0.005 |
Group III Mean increase 10.0° (SD = 13.3°) p<0.05 |
|
Night pain |
Flexion |
|
[0 (no pain) – 15 (maximal pain)] |
Group I Mean increase 6.5° (SD = 14.9°) p<0.2 |
|
Group I (initial) 9.0 (SD = 3.5) |
Group II Mean increase 15.0° (SD = 26.2°) p<0.03 |
|
(12 weeks) 3.8 (SD = 2.6) |
Group III Mean increase 24.0° (SD = 38.1°) p<0.05 |
|
(p = 0.002) |
Abduction |
|
Group II (initial) 8.6 (SD = 3.7) |
Group I Mean increase 22.5° (SD = 38.6°) p<0.03 |
|
(12 weeks) 3.9 (SD = 3.5) |
Group II Mean increase 26.4° (SD = 40.1°) p<0.03 |
|
(p = 0.003) |
Group III Mean increase 36.0° (SD = 38.1°) p<0.02 |
|
Group III (initial) 6.9 (SD = 6.9) |
Neer Sign and / or Hawkins and Kennedy Test |
|
(12 weeks) 3.6 (SD = 4.8) |
Group I: |
|
(p<0.03) |
Initially 12 positive (86%) |
|
|
12 weeks 4 positive (29%) |
|
|
Group II: |
|
|
Initially 13 positive (93%) |
|
|
12 weeks 7 positive (50%) |
|
|
Group III: |
|
|
Initially 9 positive (90%) |
|
|
12 weeks 7 positive (70%) |
| Itoi and Tabata (1992)29
|
Modified Wolfgang's Criteria |
Overall within the individual categories of the Modified Wolfgang's Criteria, significant improvements in pain (p<0.001), range of movement (p<0.05) and function (p<0.001) were reported; no significant change was reported for strength |
|
Pain (0–4) |
Follow‐up scores significantly improved in all groups (p< 0.05) except for those who had experienced symptoms for more than 12 months |
|
0 = severe, constant disabling |
In addition, 32 patients (not available for clinical follow‐up and contacted by telephone) |
|
4 = absent regardless of activity |
Excellent (31.25%): |
|
Motion [abduction] (0‐4) |
10 patients |
|
0 = <10°, 4 = >150° |
Good (56.25%): |
|
Strength (0‐4) |
18 patients |
|
0 = absent, 4 = normal |
Fair (6.25%) |
|
Function (0–4) |
2 patients |
|
0 = no functional value, 4 = no impairment |
Poor (6.25%): |
|
Total score |
2 patients |
|
Poor outcome (0–7), fair (8–10), 11–14 (good), 15–16 (excellent) |
Of the 3 patients with FTT and traumatic dislocations, 2 were evaluated as good and 1 fair. No recurrence was reported |
|
Overall final assessment: |
|
|
Improved (72.6%), 38 patients (45 shoulders) |
|
|
Unchanged (12.9%) |
|
|
7 patients (8 shoulders) |
|
|
Worse (14.5%) |
|
|
9 patients (9 shoulders) |
|
|
Overall: |
|
|
Excellent (53%), 27 patients (33 shoulders) |
|
|
Good (29%), 18 patients (18 shoulders) |
|
|
Fair (16%), 8 patients (10 shoulders) |
|
|
Poor (2%), 1 patient (1 shoulder) |
|
| Koubaa et al (2005)30
|
18 patients (75%) had a C‐M score higher than 80, |
VAS (pain at rest): |
| Evaluation before, at end and 6 months after end of last treatment. |
a VAS (pain) <20 mm, and a VAS (handicap) <20 mm |
Initial: 30.0 mm (SD = 21.6) |
| Treatment deemed successful if C‐M score >80 achieved, a VAS (handicap) score of <20/100 mm and VAS (pain) <20/100 mm. |
at 6 months. |
End treatment: 6.3 mm (SD = 11.1) |
|
At the end of treatment 19/24 (79.1%) |
6 months: 4.3 mm (SD = 6.0) (p = .001) |
|
reported treatment to be effective or very effective. |
VAS (pain during movement): |
|
At 6 months 18/24 (75%) reported treatment |
Initial: 74.1 mm (SD = 19.5) |
|
to be effective or very effective. |
End treatment: 21.1 mm (SD = 14.1) |
|
Constant–Murley Score |
6 months: 17.1 mm (SD = 15.2) (p<0.0001) |
|
Constant score improved from 44.7 (SD = 15.4) |
VAS (impairment): |
|
to 71.8 (SD = 14.1) at the end of treatment and |
Initial: 56.4 mm (SD = 15.5) |
|
to 74.7 (SD = 15.2) at 6 months (p<0.0001) |
End treatment: 14.7 mm (SD = 11.8) |
|
|
6 months: 13.7 mm (SD = 15.4) (p<0.0001) |
| Palmer (1998)31
|
Baseline versus (12 weeks) [change] |
Middle deltoid 7lbs (7lbs) [no change) |
|
Flexion ROM 90° (160°) [+70°] |
External rotation 8lbs (17lbs) [+9lbs] |
|
External rotation ROM Not measured (77°) [?] |
Internal rotation Not measured (20lbs) [?] |
|
Internal rotation ROM Not measured (60°) [?] |
Triceps 10lbs (25lbs) [+15lbs] |
|
Extension ROM 36° (51°) [+15°] |
At 2 years: |
|
Strength (in lbs) Supraspinatus 0 (7lbs) [+7lbs] |
2 continuous lengths of a 40‐foot indoor pool |
| Piccoli and Hasson (2004)32
|
SPADI |
Washing hair |
|
(range 0–100, 100 maximal disability) |
Initial 10/10, 7 weeks 3/10 |
|
At 7 weeks SPADI decreased 78% |
Range of active movement |
|
(initial score 76, final score 17) |
Flexion |
|
SF‐12 |
Initial 90°, 7 weeks 150° |
|
Initially >2.5 standard deviation from the norm |
Abduction |
|
At 7 weeks within 1 standard deviation of the norm. |
Initial 80°, 7 weeks 139° |
|
VAS (Pain) |
External rotation |
|
Worse pain |
Initial 45°, 7 weeks 89° |
|
Initial 10/10, 7 weeks 3/10 |
All patients' goals achieved |
|
Shoulder elevation pain |
(with minimal pain and difficulty) |
|
Initial 8/10, 7 weeks 3/10 |
Comb and wash hair, housework, gardening |
| Yamada et al (2000)33
|
Group I‐Exercise Group |
| Mean follow‐up period 48 months (range 12 months–19 years) |
Mean JOAS increased from 53.2 to 71.1 (p = 0.002) |
| JOAS |
Pain decreased by 58% |
| Based on pain (30 points), function (20 points), range of movement (30 points), radiographic evaluation (5 points), joint stability (15 points). Maximum score 100 points. |
Function improved by 22% |
|
ROM improved by 18% |
|
8/13 (62%) satisfied |
|
Group II‐Surgery Group |
|
(n = 26, 3 female, mean age 62 years (range 47–82) |
|
Mean JOAS increased from 58.8 to 85.9 (p<0.0001) |
|
Pain decreased by 71% |
|
Function improved by 26% |
|
ROM improved by 18% |
|
22/26 (85%) satisfied |
