BackgroundPeople suffering from musculoskeletal shoulder pain are frequently referred to physiotherapy. Physiotherapy generally involves a multimodal approach to management that may include; exercise, manual therapy and techniques to reduce pain. At present it is not possible to predict which patients will respond positively to physiotherapy treatment. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify which prognostic factors are associated with the outcome of physiotherapy in the management of musculoskeletal shoulder pain.MethodsA comprehensive search was undertaken of Ovid Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and AMED (from inception to January 2013). Prospective studies of participants with shoulder pain receiving physiotherapy which investigated the association between baseline prognostic factors and change in pain and function over time were included. Study selection, data extraction and appraisal of study quality were undertaken by two independent assessors. Quality criteria were selected from previously published guidelines to form a checklist of 24 items. The study protocol was prospectively registered onto the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.ResultsA total of 5023 titles were retrieved and screened for eligibility, 154 articles were assessed as full text and 16 met the inclusion criteria: 11 cohort studies, 3 randomised controlled trials and 2 controlled trials. Results were presented for the 9 studies meeting 13 or more of the 24 quality criteria. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity resulted in qualitative synthesis rather than meta-analysis. Three studies demonstrated that high functional disability at baseline was associated with poor functional outcome (p ≤ 0.05). Four studies demonstrated a significant association (p ≤ 0.05) between longer duration of shoulder pain and poorer outcome. Three studies, demonstrated a significant association (p ≤ 0.05) between increasing age and poorer function; three studies demonstrated no association (p > 0.05).ConclusionAssociations between prognostic factors and outcome were often inconsistent between studies. This may be due to clinical heterogeneity or type II errors. Only two baseline prognostic factors demonstrated a consistent association with outcome in two or more studies; duration of shoulder pain and baseline function. Prior to developing a predictive model for the outcome of physiotherapy treatment for shoulder pain, a large adequately powered prospective cohort study is required in which a broad range of prognostic factors are incorporated.

No abstract

Background/Aims Physiotherapists generally have a positive view of research, but have identified a number of barriers to taking part, and have expressed challenges when attempting to integrate research findings into their practice. The aim of this study was to describe the self-reported impact of collecting data for a multicentre research study on physiotherapists' clinical practice. Methods Convenience sampling was used to select three of 11 NHS trusts involved in the original data collection. A questionnaire was emailed to the 28 of 34 physiotherapists working within these three Trusts who collected data and for whom contact details were available. Results A total of 21 (75%) physiotherapists completed the questionnaire. Out of the 21 physiotherapists, 15 stated they were aware of the study results; all of whom reported subsequent changes in their beliefs about prognostic factors for shoulder pain (subject of the original study) and some alteration in clinical practice. However, barriers to integrating further changes into practice were reported, including lack of time and a perception that patients would not engage with a more (bio)psychosocial approach. Overall, 85% of responders stated data collection had changed their understanding of the research process. Conclusions Clinicians' participation in the research process positively influenced practice. However, 29% were unaware of the results and only 33% of physiotherapists accessed the published article. There were perceived barriers to integrating results into practice.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Optimal physiotherapy treatment is uncertain for atraumatic shoulder instability (ASI), the primary aim of this systematic scoping review was to compare physiotherapy treatment programmes for people with ASI. The secondary aims were to evaluate outcome measures used and to compare the effectiveness of these programmes. Methods CINAHL, EMBASE and Medline databases were searched for studies, except single case studies, published between 1950 and July 2021. 12 critical appraisal items covered three domains; internal validity, transferability to wider population and reporting. Results Ten studies were included; one randomised controlled trial, 6 cohort studies and 3 case series. There were 491 participants. Treatment programmes included education, movement re-education, static posture correction, shoulder muscle strengthening, functional training, and adjuncts. All studies used patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), 7 of which reported a statistically significant improvement ( p < 0.05) post-treatment. There was no clear relationship between programmes and outcomes. PROMs specific to shoulder instability were all found to detect statistically significant differences post-treatment. Discussion There does not appear to be one optimal physiotherapy treatment programme for ASI. Future studies should use PROMs that are valid in the shoulder instability population and use more outcome measures that are specific to impairments being targeted.

Background/Aims Stabilisation exercises are commonly prescribed for people with persistent low back pain. However, for some patients, it has been hypothesised that stabilisation exercises could draw attention to protecting the core, promote hypervigilance and inhibit volitional movement. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and reported adverse events, in particular fear avoidance, of stabilisation exercises compared with placebo or other treatments offered by physiotherapists on the outcome of disability and activity at 12- and 24-months' follow-up. Methods The following electronic databases were searched: Embase, Medline, AMED, CINAHL, from inception to June 2019. Only randomised controlled trails were included. Study selection, data extraction and appraisal of quality criteria using PEDro, were undertaken by two independent assessors. Results Seven studies (n=1820) were eligible. Of six studies that reported adverse effects in the group receiving stabilisation exercises, four reported none and two reported mild exacerbation of pain locally or elsewhere. Fear avoidance was not investigated in any of the studies. Across the studies, 12 analyses were reported and included seven different comparator groups and three outcome measures: Oswestry Disability Index (n=1), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (n=5), Patient Specific Functional Scale (n=4). Two studies included a 24-month follow up in addition to a 12-month follow up. Of the 12 studies, nine reported no significant differences between the effectiveness of stabilisation exercises and comparator groups. Stabilisation exercises were more effective than comparator groups for the following three analyses: compared to manual therapy or education at 12 but not 24 months for the Oswestry Disability Index (15.71, 95% confidence interval 19.3–10.01); compared to placebo for the Patient Specific Functional Scale (1.5, 95% confidence interval 0.7–2.2) but not the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire; and compared to high load lifting for the Patient Specific Functional Scale (1.8 95% confidence interval 2.8–0.7). Conclusions Stabilisation exercises are safe and equally effective to other treatments, and possibly superior for some outcomes at some time points. No or only mild adverse effects were reported. However, none of the studies measured fear avoidance as an outcome and we recommend this be included in future randomised controlled trials measuring the effectiveness of stabilisation exercises.

No abstract