Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24078753›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2013

A qualitative study of patients' perceptions and priorities when living with primary frozen shoulder.

Susan Jones, Nigel Hanchard, Sharon Hamilton, Amar Rangan

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04993092 (Comparative Study on the Effects of Mulligan Mobilization Technique and Muscle Energy Technique on Pain and Range of Motion in Adhesive Capsulitis), which is not on this map. Cited by 55 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04993092 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Comparative Study on the Effects of Mulligan Mobilization Technique and Muscle Energy Technique on Pain and Range of Motion in Adhesive Capsulitis

TypeinterventionalSponsorRiphah International UniversityRan2021 to 2021Enrolled22ConditionsAdhesive CapsulitisArmsmuscle energy technique, mulligan mobilization technique
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Susan JonesHealth and Social Care Institute, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK.
Nigel Hanchard
Sharon Hamilton
Amar Rangan
Teesside University · GBJames Cook University Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo elucidate the experiences and perceptions of people living with primary frozen shoulder and their priorities for treatment.

designQualitative study design using semistructured interviews.

settingGeneral practitioner (GP) and musculoskeletal clinics in primary and secondary care in one National Health Service Trust in England.

participants12 patients diagnosed with primary frozen shoulder were purposively recruited from a GP's surgery, community clinics and hospital clinics. Recruitment targeted the phases of frozen shoulder: pain predominant (n=5), stiffness predominant (n=4) and residual stiffness predominant following hospital treatment (n=2). One participant dropped out. INCLUSION CRITERIA: adult, male and female patients of any age, attending the clinics, who had been diagnosed with primary frozen shoulder.

resultsThe most important experiential themes identified by participants were: pain which was severe as well as inexplicable; inconvenience/disability arising from increasing restriction of movement (due to pain initially, gradually giving way to stiffness); confusion/anxiety associated with delay in diagnosis and uncertainty about the implications for the future; and treatment-related aspects. Participants not directly referred to a specialist (whether physiotherapist, physician or surgeon) wanted a faster, better-defined care pathway. Specialist consultation brought more definitive diagnosis, relief from anxiety and usually self-rated improvement. The main treatment priority was improved function, though there was recognition that this might be facilitated by relief of pain or stiffness. There was a general lack of information from clinicians about the condition with over-reliance on verbal communication and very little written information.

conclusionsAwareness of frozen shoulder should be increased among non-specialists and the best available information made accessible for patients. Our results also highlight the importance of patient participation in frozen shoulder research.

Indexed as

Pain Management

Identifiers

PMID24078753
PMCPMC3787409
OpenAlexW2011685194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.