ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of conservative interventions for pain, function and range of motion in adults with shoulder impingement.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.Data sourcesMedline, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase and PEDro were searched from inception to January 2017.Study selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials including participants with shoulder impingement and evaluating at least one conservative intervention against sham or other treatments.ResultsFor pain, exercise was superior to non-exercise control interventions (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.94, 95% CI −1.69 to −0.19). Specific exercises were superior to generic exercises (SMD −0.65, 95% CI −0.99 to −0.32). Corticosteroid injections were superior to no treatment (SMD −0.65, 95% CI −1.04 to −0.26), and ultrasound guided injections were superior to non-guided injections (SMD −0.51, 95% CI −0.89 to −0.13). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) had a small to moderate SMD of −0.29 (95% CI −0.53 to −0.05) compared with placebo. Manual therapy was superior to placebo (SMD −0.35, 95% CI −0.69 to −0.01). When combined with exercise, manual therapy was superior to exercise alone, but only at the shortest follow-up (SMD −0.32, 95% CI −0.62 to −0.01). Laser was superior to sham laser (SMD −0.88, 95% CI −1.48 to −0.27). Extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ECSWT) was superior to sham (−0.39, 95% CI −0.78 to –0.01) and tape was superior to sham (−0.64, 95% CI −1.16 to −0.12), with small to moderate SMDs.ConclusionAlthough there was only very low quality evidence, exercise should be considered for patients with shoulder impingement symptoms and tape, ECSWT, laser or manual therapy might be added. NSAIDS and corticosteroids are superior to placebo, but it is unclear how these treatments compare to exercise.

Objective: to determine the effects of power training with high movement velocity compared with conventional resistance training with low movement velocity for older community-dwelling people. Design: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Data sources: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and Scholar-Google. Trials: all randomised or quasi-randomised trials investigating power training with high movement velocity versus conventional resistance training with low movement velocity in elderly persons over the age of 60 years. The primary outcomes were measures of functional outcomes; secondary outcomes were balance, gait, strength, power, muscle volume and adverse effects. Results: eleven trials were identified involving 377 subjects. The pooled effect size for the follow-up values of the functional outcomes was 0.32 in favour of the power training (95% CI 0.06 to 0.57) and 0.38 (95% CI −0.51 to 1.28) for the change value. The pooled effect from three studies for self-reported function was 0.16 in favour of power training (95% CI −0.17 to 0.49). Conclusion: power training is feasible for elderly persons and has a small advantage over strength training for functional outcomes. No firm conclusion can be made for safety.

Progressive resistance training seemed to be the most effective treatment to improve strength. When it is appropriately targeted, it significantly improves strength.

No abstract

BackgroundLearning of procedural skills is an essential component in the education of future health professionals. There is little evidence on how procedural skills are best learnt and practiced in education. There is a need for educators to know what specific interventions could be used to increase learning of these skills. However, there is growing evidence from rehabilitation science, sport science and psychology that learning can be promoted with the application of motor learning principles. The aim of this review was to systematically evaluate the evidence for selected motor learning principles in physiotherapy and medical education. The selected principles were: whole or part practice, random or blocked practice, mental or no additional mental practice and terminal or concurrent feedback.MethodsCINAHL, Cochrane Central, Embase, Eric and Medline were systematically searched for eligible studies using pre-defined keywords. Included studies were evaluated on their risk of bias with the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool.ResultsThe search resulted in 740 records, following screening for relevance 15 randomised controlled trials including 695 participants were included in this systematic review. Most procedural skills in this review related to surgical procedures. Mental practice significantly improved performance on a post-acquisition test (SMD: 0.43, 95 % CI 0.01 to 0.85). Terminal feedback significantly improved learning on a transfer test (SMD: 0.94, 95 % CI 0.18 to 1.70). There were indications that whole practice had some advantages over part practice and random practice was superior to blocked practice on post-acquisition tests. All studies were evaluated as having a high risk of bias. Next to a possible performance bias in all included studies the method of sequence generation was often poorly reported.ConclusionsThere is some evidence to recommend the use of mental practice for procedural learning in medical education. There is limited evidence to conclude that terminal feedback is more effective than concurrent feedback on a transfer test. For the remaining parameters that were reviewed there was insufficient evidence to make definitive recommendations.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0538-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.