Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36053187›Full record

ArticleBone & joint open2022

Expert clinical consensus in the delivery of hydrodilatation for the management of patients with a primary frozen shoulder : a modified Delphi study.

Helen Thompson, Stephen Brealey, Elizabeth Cook, Saif Hadi, Shah H M Khan, Amar Rangan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bone & joint open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Helen ThompsonEast Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, Royal Blackburn Teaching Hospital, Blackburn, UK.
Stephen BrealeyYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Elizabeth CookYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6902-0235
Saif HadiEast Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, Royal Blackburn Teaching Hospital, Blackburn, UK.
Shah H M KhanEast Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, Royal Blackburn Teaching Hospital, Blackburn, UK.
Amar RanganYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo achieve expert clinical consensus in the delivery of hydrodilatation for the treatment of primary frozen shoulder to inform clinical practice and the design of an intervention for evaluation.

methodsWe conducted a two-stage, electronic questionnaire-based, modified Delphi survey of shoulder experts in the UK NHS. Round one required positive, negative, or neutral ratings about hydrodilatation. In round two, each participant was reminded of their round one responses and the modal (or 'group') response from all participants. This allowed participants to modify their responses in round two. We proposed respectively mandating or encouraging elements of hydrodilatation with 100% and 90% positive consensus, and respectively disallowing or discouraging with 90% and 80% negative consensus. Other elements would be optional.

resultsBetween 4 August 2020 and 4 August 2021, shoulder experts from 47 hospitals in the UK completed the study. There were 106 participants (consultant upper limb orthopaedic surgeons, n = 50; consultant radiologists, n = 52; consultant physiotherapist, n = 1; extended scope physiotherapists, n = 3) who completed round one, of whom 97 (92%) completed round two. No elements of hydrodilatation were "mandated" (100% positive rating). Elements that were "encouraged" (≥ 80% positive rating) were the use of image guidance, local anaesthetic, normal saline, and steroids to deliver the injection. Injecting according to patient tolerance, physiotherapy, and home exercises were also "encouraged". No elements were "discouraged" (≥ 80% negative rating) although using hypertonic saline was rated as being "disallowed" (≥ 90% negative rating).

conclusionIn the absence of rigorous evidence, our Delphi study allowed us to achieve expert consensus about positive, negative, and neutral ratings of hydrodilatation in the management of frozen shoulder in a hospital setting. This should inform clinical practice and the design of an intervention for evaluation.Cite this article:

Indexed as

adhesive capsulitisconsultant orthopaedic surgeonsExpert consensusFrozen shoulderHydrodilatationlocal anaestheticModified Delphi Studyphysiotherapistsphysiotherapyprimary frozen shouldersalineShouldersteroids

Identifiers

PMID36053187
PMCPMC9533238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.