Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32764872›Full record

Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2020

Jane Fitzpatrick, Christen Richardson, Ianiv Klaber, Martin D Richardson

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Drug design, development and therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Frozen shoulder.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2022
    Review
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jane FitzpatrickCentre for Health and Exercise Sports Medicine, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9578-026X
Christen RichardsonMedical School, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Acton, ACT, Australia.
Ianiv KlaberOrthopaedic Surgery Department, School of Medicine, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, Santiago, Chile.ORCID 0000-0002-0181-188X
Martin D RichardsonCentre for Health and Exercise Sports Medicine, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1280-3834
The University of Melbourne · AUAustralian National University · AUPontificia Universidad Católica de Chile · CL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background/hypothesisAdhesive capsulitis of the shoulder results in pain and restricted movement of the glenohumeral joint. Hypothesis: There would be a difference in active range of movement in the affected shoulder of patients with adhesive capsulitis after receiving a series of injections of collagenase

methodsThis study reports the results from a single site that was part of a 321-participant, multicenter, double-blind, prospective parallel-group, randomized controlled clinical trial. Inclusion criteria: over 18 years of age, unilateral idiopathic adhesive capsulitis for >3 months, but <12 months. Exclusion criteria: recent physical therapy, injections, subacromial impingement, calcific tendonitis or glenohumeral joint arthritis in the affected shoulder. Subjects were randomized 3:1 to receive CCH 0.58 mg or placebo under ultrasound guidance. Injections were on days 1, 22, and 43. The primary outcome measure was a functional assessment of active range of movement.

resultsOverall, 37 patients were screened, 26 subjects were excluded, and 11 subjects were randomly assigned to the treatment group (n=9) or the control group (n=2). Both control and treatment groups showed improvement in ROM between baseline and day 95. In the treatment group, AROM improved from the baseline of 272.89° (SD 86.25) to 462.11° (SD 96.89) and the control group from 246.00° (SD 5.66) to 451.50° (SD 50.20) at day 95 with no statistical difference between groups p=0.78. Site data were in line with the whole study findings. Treatment-related adverse events at the injection site, including haematoma (bruising) and localised pain and swelling, were common.

conclusionAlthough the participants showed improvement in function, statistical significance was neither reached in the site nor the overall study cohort. Given the adverse events and the potential risks of the procedure, we would not recommend this drug for the treatment of adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2, cohort from one site of RCT.

Indexed as

AdultBursitisCollagenasesDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHathewaya histolyticaHumansMaleMiddle AgedShoulderCollagenasesadhesive capsulitiscollagenasefrozen shoulder

Identifiers

PMID32764872
PMCPMC7360415
OpenAlexW3040982158

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.