Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Does interferential current provide additional benefit to orthopedic rehabilitation for the patients with proximal humeral fractures? A randomized controlled study.
Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the efficacy of physical agent modalities in patients with fractures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundApproximately 80% of all proximal humeral fractures (PHFs) are non-displaced or minimally displaced fractures, which can be treated with conservative treatment. This study investigated the effect of interferential current (IFC) added to orthopedic rehabilitation on shoulder function, pain, and disability in patients with PHF.
methodsThis study was a prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled conducted in physical medicine and rehabilitation outpatient clinic. Thirty-five patients were randomly separated into the IFC group (n = 18) and the sham group (n = 17). The orthopedic rehabilitation program was applied to all patients by the same physiotherapist three times a week for four weeks. Patients in the IFC group received the intervention for 20 minutes 3 times a week before the exercise. The same pads were performed for the sham group, but no electrical stimulation was applied. Constant-Murley score (CMS) for shoulder function, visual analog scale (VAS) activity pain, disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) score, and paracetamol intake were recorded post-treatment, at 6 weeks and 18 weeks post-treatment.
resultsThe demographic and fracture characteristics were not different between the groups. Significant differences were observed in the IFC and sham group in intragroup comparisons of total CMS, VAS activity pain, DASH score, and paracetamol intake over time (p < 0.001). Significant improvement over time was valid for all pairwise comparisons in both groups. However, no significant differences were detected between the IFC and sham group.
conclusionIFC added to orthopedic rehabilitation could not appear to be an electrotherapy modality that could potentially benefit shoulder function and disability in patients with PHF.
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.