Trial reportThe Journal of manual & manipulative therapy2026
A comparison of two mobilization approaches on the acromiohumeral distance in overhead athletes with primary subacromial impingement syndrome: a randomized clinical study.
Trial report in The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Maitland mobilisation improves all ranges of motion in non-traumatic shoulder injury: A randomised controlled trial.The South African journal of physiotherapy · 2026Article
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
objectivesShoulder mobilization techniques, with and without movement, may restore the range of intra-articular glenohumeral motions and expand the subacromial space during arm abduction. The primary purpose of this study was to measure and compare the acromiohumeral distance at three static angles of passive scapular arm abduction (no arm abduction, 45° of arm abduction, and 60° of arm abduction) in overhead athletes diagnosed with primary subacromial impingement syndrome, before and after shoulder mobilization techniques with and without movement, combined with contemporary physical therapy.
methodsFifty-one overhead athletes diagnosed with primary subacromial impingement syndrome were randomly assigned to three parallel groups. One intervention group received the Mulligan shoulder mobilization techniques, whereas the other intervention group received the Maitland shoulder mobilization techniques. Both mobilization approaches were accompanied by contemporary physical therapy and were administered every other day for two weeks. The control group received no specific intervention for two weeks. Using an ultrasound device, the acromiohumeral distance was assessed in the intervention groups one day before and one day after treatment with manual therapy and in the control group at two-week intervals.
resultsBoth the Mulligan and Maitland approaches significantly increased the acromiohumeral distance at all three static angles of passive scapular arm abduction (p-values < 0.001). In contrast, no significant changes were observed in the control group (p-values > 0.317).The Mulligan approach, compared to the Maitland approach, exhibited significantly greater increases in the acromiohumeral distance at all three static angles of passive scapular arm abduction (p-values < 0.001).
conclusionsBoth the Mulligan and Maitland shoulder mobilization techniques, combined with contemporary physical therapy, significantly increased the acromiohumeral distance at static angles of passive scapular arm abduction in individuals suffering from primary subacromial impingement syndrome. Moreover, the Mulligan approach provided significantly greater improvements in the acromiohumeral distance compared to the Maitland approach.
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.