Table 2.
Descriptive characteristics of the included studies assessing treatments for subacromial impingement syndrome
| Author & Year | Study Design | Participantsa | Diagnosis | Treatment Frequency | Data collection | Intervention | Comparison | Outcome Measures | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kardouni et al. 2015 [39] | RCT | n = 52; mean age active group 30.8 ± 11.9; mean age sham group 33.2 ± 12.6 | 3 of 5 positive signs or in-office exam findings | 1 treatment | Pre, post & 24–48 h post-treatment | Active thoracic SMT; prone lower, mid- and seated upper thoracic treatment (x2) for a total of 6 SMT maneuvers | Sham thoracic SMT with identical positioning | NPRSc
(0–10) PSSd, b (0–100) |
Pre-post mean change: active group, −0.9; sham group, −1.2; main effect within group (p < 0.001); between group (p = .74) Pre-post mean change: active group, 8.6; sham group, 9.3; main effect within group (p < 0.001); between group (p = .89) |
| Kardouni et al. 2015 [38] | RCT | n = 45; mean age active group 31.1 ± 12.3; mean age sham group 31.2 ± 12.1 | 5 of 7 positive signs or in-office exam findings | 1 treatment | Pre, post & 24–48 h post-treatment | Active thoracic SMT; prone lower, mid- and seated upper thoracic treatment (x2) for a total of 6 SMT maneuvers | Sham thoracic SMT with identical positioning | NPRSe
(0–10) PSSf, b (0–100) |
Pre-post mean change: active group, −0.9; sham group, −1.5; main effect within group (p < 0.001); between group (p = .28) Pre-post mean change: active group, 9.2; sham group, 11.0; main effect within group (p < 0.001); between group (p = .52) |
| Haik et al. 2014 [41] | RCT | n = 50; mean age active group 33.8 ± 12.2; mean age sham group 29.7 ± 9.3 | 3 of 7 positive signs or in-office exam findings | 1 treatment | Pre and Post | Active thoracic SMT; seated mid-thoracic manipulation | Sham thoracic SMT | NPRSg
(0–10) |
Pre-post mean change: active group, −0.8; sham group, −0.2; main effect within group (p = .004); between group (p = .11) |
| Munday et al. 2007 [40] | RCT | n = 30; group A mean age 23 (range 19–32); group B mean age 22 (range 16–38) | 3 of 4 positive signs or in-office exam findings | 8 treatments in 3 weeks | Baseline (1st visit), 3 weeks (8th treatment) & 1-month follow-up | Group B (n = 15): thrust manipulation (AC joint or GH joint; if necessary, scapula or ribs) | Group A (n = 15): detuned ultrasound | VASh
(100 mm) SFMPQh |
Pre-post mean change within groups: group A, −29.17 (p ≤ .05); group B, −27.24 (p ≤ .05) Mean differences between groups: −9.1 (p = .019) Pre-post mean change within groups: group A, −10.77 (p ≤ .05); group B, −24.01 (p ≤ .05) Mean differences between groups: −8.4 (p = .005) |
| Boyles et al. 2009 [42] | Non-randomized study | n = 56; mean age 31.2 ± 8.9 | ≥2 NPRS plus + Neer or Hawkins-Kennedy and ≥2 NPRS on active shoulder abduction or on resisted test (internal or external rotation; empty can) | 1 treatment | Pre and Post | Thoracic SMT; seated mid-thoracic and cervicothoracic junction; supine rib manipulation (if required) | N/A | NPRSi
(0–10) SPADIi (0–100) |
Pre-post mean change: Neer, −1.1 (p = .001); Hawkins, −1.2 (p < 0.001); resisted EC, −0.8 (p = .007); resisted IR, −0.6 (p = .008); resisted ER, −1.0 (p < 0.001); active ABD, −0.8 (p = .001) Pre-post mean change: −6.8 (p < 0.001) |
| Muth et al. 2012 [43] | Non-randomized study | n = 30; mean age 30.6 ± 7.9 | ≥3 NPRS on performance of Hawkins-Kennedy, Neer, or Jobe tests | 1 treatment | Pre, post & 7–10 days post-treatment | Thoracic SMT; seated mid-thoracic (focus on apex of the thoracic kyphosis) and cervicothoracic junction | N/A | NPRSj (0–10) PSSk, b (0–100) |
Pre-post mean change: Jobe, −2.6 (p < 0.001); Neer, −2.6 (p < 0.001); Hawkins, −2.8 (p < 0.001); cervical rotation, −0.4 (p = .04) Pre-post mean change: 7.6 ± 9.3 CI (4.1,11.1), (p < 0.001) |
RCT randomized controlled trial, SMT thrust spinal manipulative therapy, NPRS numeric pain rating scale, PSS Penn shoulder score, VAS visual analog scale, SFMPQ short-form McGill pain questionnaire, EC empty can, IR internal rotation, ER external rotation, ABD abduction, SPADI shoulder pain and disability index, CI confidence interval, ROM range of motion, EMG electromyo-graphy
aMean age ± SD
bA higher score is better
cSecondary outcome assessed at baseline, immediately post-treatment, and at 24–48 h follow-up; primary outcome was thoracic motion
dSecondary outcome assessed at baseline and at 24–48 h follow-up; primary outcome was thoracic motion
eSecondary outcome assessed at baseline, immediately post-treatment, and at 24–48 h follow-up; primary outcome was pain pressure threshold
fSecondary outcome assessed at baseline and at 24–48 h follow-up; primary outcome was pain pressure threshold
gPrimary outcome assessed pre- and immediately post-treatment; another primary outcome was scapular kinematics
hPrimary outcome assessed at baseline, week 3 and at 1-month follow-up; another primary outcome was pain pressure threshold
iPrimary outcome assessed at baseline and at 48-h follow-up; secondary outcome was Global Rating of Change Scale
jSecondary outcome assessed at baseline and immediately post-treatment; other secondary outcomes included force production and ROM; primary outcomes were scapular kinematics and EMG
kSecondary outcome assessed at 7–10 days follow-up; result mean change ± SD; other secondary outcomes included force production and ROM; primary outcomes were scapular kinematics and EMG