ArticleJSES international2023
Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of manipulation under brachial plexus block versus physiotherapy for refractory frozen shoulder: a prospective observational study.
Article in JSES international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a Multidomain Conceptual Framework for Frozen Shoulder: A Systematic Review Integrating Clinical, Biological, Psychological and Lifestyle-Related Contributors.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- 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
- Clinical efficacy of manipulation under brachial plexus block anesthesia for primary adhesive capsulitis of shoulder: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Frozen shoulder (FS) is a pathological condition that involves a painful and stiff shoulder joint, most commonly in people aged 40-60 years. Most literature supports treatment with physical therapy (PT), although some studies have demonstrated years of continuing pain and functional deficits. Manipulation under anesthesia is effective at eliminating the contracture of intra-articular lesions for refractory FS. This study aimed to compare whether manipulation under anesthesia or PT is a more effective treatment in refractory FS. Methods: This study was a prospective observational study. A total of 102 patients with refractory FS were enrolled in this study in the medical records, all of whom had severe and multidirectional loss of motion and thickening of the joint capsule and coracohumeral ligament on magnetic resonance imaging. Fifty-one patients were in the manipulation under brachial plexus block (MUB) group (34 females, median age: 57 years), and 51 patients were in the PT group (34 females, median age: 59 years). The MUB procedure consisted of the conventional method with additional adduction manipulation, in which one examiner initially abducted the shoulder joint as much as possible. We recorded the visual analog scale, shoulder range of motion, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Constant Scores at the initial baseline visit and at the 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. The total cost was calculated from the medical records, and cost-effectiveness was evaluated using quality-adjusted life year and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results: Visual analog scale ( Conclusions: The new MUB procedure provides a shorter treatment period, better clinical outcomes, and higher cost-effectiveness in patients with refractory FS compared to PT.
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.