Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Additive effect of glenohumeral joint hydrodilatation applied in addition to suprascapular nerve blockage in patients with adhesive capsulitis.
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 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to investigate the efficacy of shoulder hydrodilatation (HD) applied in addition to suprascapular nerve blockage (SSNB) on severity of pain, shoulder joint range of motion (ROM), functional status, handgrip (HG) strength in patients with adhesive capsulitis (AC).
methodsForty-eight patients who were diagnosed with AC based on physical examination findings included in the study. The patients were randomized into two groups as combination of SSNB + HD and SSNB alone. Injections were performed under ultrasonography guidance. Shoulder ROM angles were measured with a goniometer. Pain intensity was evaluated with visual analog scale. Functional status was evaluated with Quick Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QDASH). HG strength was measured by a Jamar dynometer. After the injection, a home-based exercise program was given to all patients. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 1st and 3rd month.
resultsAbduction and external rotation ROM angles were statistically significantly limited in SSNB group, at baseline (p = 0.020, p = 0.018, respectively). In terms of other parameters, both groups were similar at baseline (p > 0.05). At comparison of baseline-1st month, a significant improvement was observed in VAS score, abduction and flexion ROM and QDASH score, in both groups (p < 0.05), however, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups. There is a statistically significant decrease in VAS score in both groups, at all times, but, no significant difference between the groups. At the comparison of baseline-3rd month measurements, it was observed that all of the parameters significantly improved in both groups, and there was no statistically significant difference between the groups except for abduction and external rotation ROM (p > 0.05). Abduction ROM and external rotation ROM were significantly higher in the SSNB group than SSNB + HD group at 3rd month.
conclusionsBoth SSNB + HD and SSNB alone provide significant improvement clinically especially in shoulder pain. HD added to SSNB does not seem to provide any additional benefit. SSNB is an effective treatment option for up to 3 months in patients with AC, mainly in abduction and external rotation limitation.
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.