ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Adduction Manipulation of the Glenohumeral Joint versus Physiotherapy for Atraumatic Rotator Cuff Tears: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of glenohumeral adduction restriction in frozen shoulder as a predictor of intra-articular lesion severity: a comparison study of the freezing and frozen phases.JSES international · 2025Article
- Prolonged early postoperative adduction restriction is significantly associated with shoulder stiffness 1 year after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.JSES international · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAtraumatic rotator cuff tears (ARCTs) are frequently concomitant with adduction restriction of the glenohumeral joint (GHJ). Adduction manipulation (AM) removes the restriction and relieves pain. The present study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy of AM versus physiotherapy (PT) in ARCTs.
methodsEighty-eight patients with adduction restriction were allocated to the AM and PT groups (
resultsForty-three patients (23 males, average age 71.3 years) in the AM group and 41 (16 males, average age 70.7 years) in the PT group were consequently analyzed. At the 1-month follow-up, VAS, shoulder motion except ER, ASES and Constant scores were much better in the AM group than in the PT group, whereas those in the PT group improved gradually up to 12 months. At the final follow-up, flexion, abduction, and Constant score were significantly better in the AM group than in the PT group. The GAA at the initial and final examinations was -21.6° and -3.2°, respectively, in the AM group, and -21.1° and -14.4°, respectively, in the PT group.
conclusionsThe AM procedure, which had better clinical efficacy than PT, is recommended as the first conservative treatment option for ARCTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.