Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Physiotherapy interventions for shoulder pain

  1. Sally Green1,*,
  2. Rachelle Buchbinder2,
  3. Sarah E Hetrick3

Editorial Group: Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group

Published Online: 16 JUL 2008

Assessed as up-to-date: 23 FEB 2003

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004258

Database Title

Additional Information

How to Cite

Green S, Buchbinder R, Hetrick SE. Physiotherapy interventions for shoulder pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004258. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004258.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Monash University, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

  2. 2

    Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology at Cabrini Hospital, Malvern, Victoria, Australia

  3. 3

    University of Melbourne, Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, Orygen Youth Health Research Centre, Centre for Youth Mental Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

*Sally Green, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Monash Medical Centre, Locked Bag 29, Clayton, Melbourne, Victoria, 3168, Australia. sally.green@monash.edu.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: Edited (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 16 JUL 2008

SEARCH

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Summary (60K)Standard (433K)Full (1008K)
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 BIPOLAR INTERFERENTIAL CURRENT VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 1 Recovery or substantial improvement at 6 weeks.
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 BIPOLAR INTERFERENTIAL CURRENT VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 2 Recovery or substantial improvement (participant rated) at 3 months.
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 BIPOLAR INTERFERENTIAL CURRENT VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 3 Recovery or substantial improvement (participant rated) at 6 months.
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 BIPOLAR INTERFERENTIAL CURRENT VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 4 Recovery or substantial improvement (participant rated) at 9 months.
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 BIPOLAR INTERFERENTIAL CURRENT VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 5 Recovery or substantial improvement (participant rated) at 12 months.
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 ULTRASOUND VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 1 Recovery or substantial improvement (participant rated) - short term.
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 ULTRASOUND VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 2 Recovery or substantial improvement (participant rated) at 3 months.
[Analysis 2.3]
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 ULTRASOUND VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 3 Recovery or substantial improvement (participant rated) at 6 months.
[Analysis 2.4]
Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 ULTRASOUND VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 4 Recovery or substantial improvement (participant rated) at 9 months.
[Analysis 2.5]
Analysis 2.5. Comparison 2 ULTRASOUND VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 5 Recovery or substantial improvement (participant rated) at 12 months.
[Analysis 2.6]
Analysis 2.6. Comparison 2 ULTRASOUND VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 6 Resolution or improvement of radiological finding at end of treatment (6 weeks).
[Analysis 2.7]
Analysis 2.7. Comparison 2 ULTRASOUND VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 7 Resolution or improvement of radiological finding at 9 months.
[Analysis 2.8]
Analysis 2.8. Comparison 2 ULTRASOUND VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 8 Normal function at end of treatment (6 weeks).
[Analysis 2.9]
Analysis 2.9. Comparison 2 ULTRASOUND VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 9 Normal function at 9 months.
[Analysis 2.10]
Analysis 2.10. Comparison 2 ULTRASOUND VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 10 Change in range of flexion.
[Analysis 2.11]
Analysis 2.11. Comparison 2 ULTRASOUND VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 11 Range of abduction.
[Analysis 2.12]
Analysis 2.12. Comparison 2 ULTRASOUND VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 12 Change in internal rotation.
[Analysis 2.13]
Analysis 2.13. Comparison 2 ULTRASOUND VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 13 Change in external rotation.
[Analysis 2.14]
Analysis 2.14. Comparison 2 ULTRASOUND VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 14 Pain (100mmVAS) at 4 weeks.
[Analysis 2.15]
Analysis 2.15. Comparison 2 ULTRASOUND VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 15 Painfree at 4 weeks.
[Analysis 2.16]
Analysis 2.16. Comparison 2 ULTRASOUND VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 16 Pain (out of 20) at 4 months.
[Analysis 2.17]
Analysis 2.17. Comparison 2 ULTRASOUND VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 17 Pain (out of 20) at 12 months.
[Analysis 2.18]
Analysis 2.18. Comparison 2 ULTRASOUND VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 18 Function (out of 14) at 4 months.
[Analysis 2.19]
Analysis 2.19. Comparison 2 ULTRASOUND VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 19 Function (out of 14) at 12 months.
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 SUPERVISED EXERCISES VERSUS PLACEBO OR NO TREATMENT, Outcome 1 Good or excellent function (Neer score) at 2 and a half years.
[Analysis 3.2]
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 SUPERVISED EXERCISES VERSUS PLACEBO OR NO TREATMENT, Outcome 2 No pain on activity at 2 and a half years.
[Analysis 3.3]
Analysis 3.3. Comparison 3 SUPERVISED EXERCISES VERSUS PLACEBO OR NO TREATMENT, Outcome 3 No pain at rest at 2 and a half years.
[Analysis 3.4]
Analysis 3.4. Comparison 3 SUPERVISED EXERCISES VERSUS PLACEBO OR NO TREATMENT, Outcome 4 No pain at night at two and a half years.
[Analysis 3.5]
Analysis 3.5. Comparison 3 SUPERVISED EXERCISES VERSUS PLACEBO OR NO TREATMENT, Outcome 5 Substantial improvement or recovered post treatment (1 month). Participant rated.
[Analysis 3.6]
Analysis 3.6. Comparison 3 SUPERVISED EXERCISES VERSUS PLACEBO OR NO TREATMENT, Outcome 6 No pain post treatment (1 month).
[Analysis 3.7]
Analysis 3.7. Comparison 3 SUPERVISED EXERCISES VERSUS PLACEBO OR NO TREATMENT, Outcome 7 Good or excellent function post treatment (1 month).
[Analysis 3.8]
Analysis 3.8. Comparison 3 SUPERVISED EXERCISES VERSUS PLACEBO OR NO TREATMENT, Outcome 8 Worsened range of abduction post treatment (1 month).
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 LASER VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 1 Excellent or good result.
[Analysis 4.2]
Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 LASER VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 2 Change in Range of Movement at four weeks.
[Analysis 4.3]
Analysis 4.3. Comparison 4 LASER VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 3 Change in night pain at four weeks.
[Analysis 4.4]
Analysis 4.4. Comparison 4 LASER VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 4 Change in pain at rest at four weeks.
[Analysis 4.5]
Analysis 4.5. Comparison 4 LASER VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 5 Change in pain on movement at four weeks.
[Analysis 4.6]
Analysis 4.6. Comparison 4 LASER VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 6 Change in function at four weeks.
[Analysis 4.7]
Analysis 4.7. Comparison 4 LASER VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 7 Change in range of movement at 8 weeks.
[Analysis 4.8]
Analysis 4.8. Comparison 4 LASER VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 8 Change in night pain at 8 weeks.
[Analysis 4.9]
Analysis 4.9. Comparison 4 LASER VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 9 Change in pain at rest at 8 weeks.
[Analysis 4.10]
Analysis 4.10. Comparison 4 LASER VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 10 Change in pain on movement at 8 weeks.
[Analysis 4.11]
Analysis 4.11. Comparison 4 LASER VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 11 Change in function at 8 weeks.
[Analysis 5.1]
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 PULSED ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 1 No pain at end of treatment (6 days).
[Analysis 5.2]
Analysis 5.2. Comparison 5 PULSED ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 2 No pain at 4-6 Weeks.
[Analysis 5.3]
Analysis 5.3. Comparison 5 PULSED ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 3 Adverse effects.
[Analysis 6.1]
Analysis 6.1. Comparison 6 IONTOPHORESIS WITH ACETIC ACID PLUS ULTRASOUND VERSUS NO TREATMENT, Outcome 1 Percent change in size of calcium deposit.
[Analysis 6.2]
Analysis 6.2. Comparison 6 IONTOPHORESIS WITH ACETIC ACID PLUS ULTRASOUND VERSUS NO TREATMENT, Outcome 2 Percent improvement in abduction.
[Analysis 7.1]
Analysis 7.1. Comparison 7 BIPOLAR INTERFERENTIAL CURRENT VERSUS ULTRASOUND, Outcome 1 Recovery or substantial improvement (participant rated) at 6 weeks.
[Analysis 7.2]
Analysis 7.2. Comparison 7 BIPOLAR INTERFERENTIAL CURRENT VERSUS ULTRASOUND, Outcome 2 Recovery or substantial improvement (participant rated) at 3 months.
[Analysis 7.3]
Analysis 7.3. Comparison 7 BIPOLAR INTERFERENTIAL CURRENT VERSUS ULTRASOUND, Outcome 3 Recovery or substantial improvement (participant rated) at 6 months.
[Analysis 7.4]
Analysis 7.4. Comparison 7 BIPOLAR INTERFERENTIAL CURRENT VERSUS ULTRASOUND, Outcome 4 Recovery or substantial improvement (participant rated) at 9 months.
[Analysis 7.5]
Analysis 7.5. Comparison 7 BIPOLAR INTERFERENTIAL CURRENT VERSUS ULTRASOUND, Outcome 5 Recovery or substantial improvement (participant rated) at 12 months.
[Analysis 8.1]
Analysis 8.1. Comparison 8 TENS VERSUS ULTRASOUND, Outcome 1 Pain on VAS.
[Analysis 9.1]
Analysis 9.1. Comparison 9 MOBILISATION PLUS EXERCISE VERSUS EXERCISE ALONE, Outcome 1 Range of internal rotation at 3 to 4 weeks.
[Analysis 9.2]
Analysis 9.2. Comparison 9 MOBILISATION PLUS EXERCISE VERSUS EXERCISE ALONE, Outcome 2 Range of abduction at 3 to 4 weeks.
[Analysis 9.3]
Analysis 9.3. Comparison 9 MOBILISATION PLUS EXERCISE VERSUS EXERCISE ALONE, Outcome 3 Pain at 3 to 4 weeks.
[Analysis 9.4]
Analysis 9.4. Comparison 9 MOBILISATION PLUS EXERCISE VERSUS EXERCISE ALONE, Outcome 4 Range of passive abduction at 4 weeks.
[Analysis 9.5]
Analysis 9.5. Comparison 9 MOBILISATION PLUS EXERCISE VERSUS EXERCISE ALONE, Outcome 5 Composite strength score at 3 weeks.
[Analysis 9.6]
Analysis 9.6. Comparison 9 MOBILISATION PLUS EXERCISE VERSUS EXERCISE ALONE, Outcome 6 Function at 3 weeks.
[Analysis 9.7]
Analysis 9.7. Comparison 9 MOBILISATION PLUS EXERCISE VERSUS EXERCISE ALONE, Outcome 7 Pain on subacromial compression (mm on VAS) at 3 weeks.
[Analysis 9.8]
Analysis 9.8. Comparison 9 MOBILISATION PLUS EXERCISE VERSUS EXERCISE ALONE, Outcome 8 Range of elevation (degrees) at 3 weeks.
[Analysis 9.9]
Analysis 9.9. Comparison 9 MOBILISATION PLUS EXERCISE VERSUS EXERCISE ALONE, Outcome 9 Range of external rotation (degrees) at 3 weeks.
[Analysis 10.1]
Analysis 10.1. Comparison 10 MOBLISATION/ MANIPULATION VERSUS EXERCISES AND ELECTROTHERAPY, Outcome 1 Pain at end of intervention period.
[Analysis 10.2]
Analysis 10.2. Comparison 10 MOBLISATION/ MANIPULATION VERSUS EXERCISES AND ELECTROTHERAPY, Outcome 2 "Cured" at 5 weeks (participant rated).
[Analysis 10.3]
Analysis 10.3. Comparison 10 MOBLISATION/ MANIPULATION VERSUS EXERCISES AND ELECTROTHERAPY, Outcome 3 "Not cured" (participant rated) at 2 and a half years (in those followed up).
[Analysis 11.1]
Analysis 11.1. Comparison 11 ISOKINETIC RESISTANCE EXERCISES VERSUS ELECTROMYOGRAPHIC BIOFEEDBACK, Outcome 1 No functional limitation at work at 8 weeks.
[Analysis 11.2]
Analysis 11.2. Comparison 11 ISOKINETIC RESISTANCE EXERCISES VERSUS ELECTROMYOGRAPHIC BIOFEEDBACK, Outcome 2 No functional limitation at work at 26 weeks.
[Analysis 11.3]
Analysis 11.3. Comparison 11 ISOKINETIC RESISTANCE EXERCISES VERSUS ELECTROMYOGRAPHIC BIOFEEDBACK, Outcome 3 No functional limitation at work at 1 year.
[Analysis 11.4]
Analysis 11.4. Comparison 11 ISOKINETIC RESISTANCE EXERCISES VERSUS ELECTROMYOGRAPHIC BIOFEEDBACK, Outcome 4 No functional limitation at in sport at 8 weeks.
[Analysis 11.5]
Analysis 11.5. Comparison 11 ISOKINETIC RESISTANCE EXERCISES VERSUS ELECTROMYOGRAPHIC BIOFEEDBACK, Outcome 5 No functional limitation in sport at 26 weeks.
[Analysis 11.6]
Analysis 11.6. Comparison 11 ISOKINETIC RESISTANCE EXERCISES VERSUS ELECTROMYOGRAPHIC BIOFEEDBACK, Outcome 6 No functional limitation in sport at 1 year.
[Analysis 12.1]
Analysis 12.1. Comparison 12 PHYSIOTHERAPY WITH ELECTRO MAGNETIC THERAPY VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY WITH NO ELECTRO MAGNETIC THERAPY, Outcome 1 Range of shoulder flexion at 12 weeks.
[Analysis 12.2]
Analysis 12.2. Comparison 12 PHYSIOTHERAPY WITH ELECTRO MAGNETIC THERAPY VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY WITH NO ELECTRO MAGNETIC THERAPY, Outcome 2 Range of shoulder abduction at 12 weeks.
[Analysis 12.3]
Analysis 12.3. Comparison 12 PHYSIOTHERAPY WITH ELECTRO MAGNETIC THERAPY VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY WITH NO ELECTRO MAGNETIC THERAPY, Outcome 3 Range of shoulder external rotation at 12 weeks.
[Analysis 12.4]
Analysis 12.4. Comparison 12 PHYSIOTHERAPY WITH ELECTRO MAGNETIC THERAPY VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY WITH NO ELECTRO MAGNETIC THERAPY, Outcome 4 Range of shoulder internal rotation at 12 weeks.
[Analysis 12.5]
Analysis 12.5. Comparison 12 PHYSIOTHERAPY WITH ELECTRO MAGNETIC THERAPY VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY WITH NO ELECTRO MAGNETIC THERAPY, Outcome 5 Pain at rest at 12 weeks.
[Analysis 12.6]
Analysis 12.6. Comparison 12 PHYSIOTHERAPY WITH ELECTRO MAGNETIC THERAPY VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY WITH NO ELECTRO MAGNETIC THERAPY, Outcome 6 Pain on movement at 6 weeks.
[Analysis 12.7]
Analysis 12.7. Comparison 12 PHYSIOTHERAPY WITH ELECTRO MAGNETIC THERAPY VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY WITH NO ELECTRO MAGNETIC THERAPY, Outcome 7 Pain on lying at 6 weeks.
[Analysis 13.1]
Analysis 13.1. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 1 Improvement in severity of main complaint at 3 weeks.
[Analysis 13.2]
Analysis 13.2. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 2 Improvement in severity of main complaint at 7 weeks.
[Analysis 13.3]
Analysis 13.3. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 3 Improvement in severity of main complaint at 13 weeks.
[Analysis 13.4]
Analysis 13.4. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 4 Improvement in severity of main complaint at 26 weeks.
[Analysis 13.5]
Analysis 13.5. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 5 Improvement in severity of main complaint at 52 weeks.
[Analysis 13.6]
Analysis 13.6. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 6 Pain at 2-3 weeks (100cm VAS).
[Analysis 13.7]
Analysis 13.7. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 7 Improvement in severity of day pain at 7 weeks.
[Analysis 13.8]
Analysis 13.8. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 8 Improvement in severity of day pain at 13 weeks.
[Analysis 13.9]
Analysis 13.9. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 9 Improvement in severity of day pain at 26 weeks.
[Analysis 13.10]
Analysis 13.10. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 10 Improvement in severity of day pain at 52 weeks.
[Analysis 13.11]
Analysis 13.11. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 11 Improvement in severity of night pain at 3 weeks.
[Analysis 13.12]
Analysis 13.12. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 12 Improvement in severity of night pain at 7 weeks.
[Analysis 13.13]
Analysis 13.13. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 13 Improvement in severity of night pain at 13 weeks.
[Analysis 13.14]
Analysis 13.14. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 14 Improvement in severity of night pain at 26 weeks.
[Analysis 13.15]
Analysis 13.15. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 15 Improvement in severity of night pain at 52 weeks.
[Analysis 13.16]
Analysis 13.16. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 16 Improvement in severity as rated by observer at 3 weeks.
[Analysis 13.17]
Analysis 13.17. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 17 Improvement in severity as rated by observer at 7 weeks.
[Analysis 13.18]
Analysis 13.18. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 18 Improvement in severity as rated by observer at 26 weeks.
[Analysis 13.19]
Analysis 13.19. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 19 Improvement in rating of shoulder disability at 3 weeks.
[Analysis 13.20]
Analysis 13.20. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 20 Improvement in rating of shoulder disability at 7 weeks.
[Analysis 13.21]
Analysis 13.21. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 21 Improvement in rating of shoulder disability at 13 weeks.
[Analysis 13.22]
Analysis 13.22. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 22 Improvement in rating of shoulder disability at 26 weeks.
[Analysis 13.23]
Analysis 13.23. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 23 Improvement in rating of shoulder disability at 52 weeks.
[Analysis 13.24]
Analysis 13.24. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 24 Range of abduction (degrees) at 2-3 weeks.
[Analysis 13.25]
Analysis 13.25. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 25 Improvement in degree of restriction of ROM of abduction at 7 weeks.
[Analysis 13.26]
Analysis 13.26. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 26 Improvement in degree of restriction of ROM of abduction at 26 weeks.
[Analysis 13.27]
Analysis 13.27. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 27 Improvement in degree of restriction of ROM of ER at 3 weeks.
[Analysis 13.28]
Analysis 13.28. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 28 Improvement in degree of restriction of ROM of ER at 7 weeks.
[Analysis 13.29]
Analysis 13.29. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 29 Improvement in degree of restriction of ROM of ER at 26 weeks.
[Analysis 13.30]
Analysis 13.30. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 30 Number needing additional treatment at 7 weeks.
[Analysis 13.31]
Analysis 13.31. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 31 Frequency of adverse reactions.
[Analysis 13.32]
Analysis 13.32. Comparison 13 INTRA-ARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION, EXERCISE AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 32 Short term treatment success.
[Analysis 14.1]
Analysis 14.1. Comparison 14 INTRA-ARTICULAR AND SUBACROMIAL STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (EXERCISES AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 1 Pain at end of intervention period.
[Analysis 14.2]
Analysis 14.2. Comparison 14 INTRA-ARTICULAR AND SUBACROMIAL STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (EXERCISES AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 2 "Cured" at 5 weeks (participant rated).
[Analysis 14.3]
Analysis 14.3. Comparison 14 INTRA-ARTICULAR AND SUBACROMIAL STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (EXERCISES AND ELECTROTHERAPY), Outcome 3 "Not cured" (participant rated) at 2 and a half years (in those followed up).
[Analysis 15.1]
Analysis 15.1. Comparison 15 INTRA-ARTICULAR AND SUBACROMIAL STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION AND MANIPULATION), Outcome 1 Pain at end of intervention period.
[Analysis 15.2]
Analysis 15.2. Comparison 15 INTRA-ARTICULAR AND SUBACROMIAL STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION AND MANIPULATION), Outcome 2 "Cured" at 5 weeks (participant rated).
[Analysis 15.3]
Analysis 15.3. Comparison 15 INTRA-ARTICULAR AND SUBACROMIAL STEROID INJECTION VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY (MOBILISATION AND MANIPULATION), Outcome 3 "Not cured" (participant rated) at 2 and a half years (in those followed up).
View Full Article (HTML) Summary (60K)Standard (433K)Full (1008K)