SynthesisEuropean journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine2025
Effect of home exercise programs in patients with non-tears rotator cuff-related shoulder pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionConservative treatment based on physiotherapy is the first option for non-tears rotator cuff related shoulder pain (RCSP). Although several studies demonstrate the positive effect of therapeutic exercise, aspects such as the influence of supervised exercises versus home-self training or the level of adherence are still unclear. The objective is to study the effect of home exercise programs compared to supervised exercise, either alone or combined with standard physiotherapy treatment. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Web of Science, PubMed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, trials registries and reference lists with relevant articles were searched up to March 2025. Only randomized controlled trials were included that aimed to compare the effect of a home exercise program in patients versus supervised exercise, either in isolation or with usual physiotherapy. The PEDro scale and the Cochrane Collaboration tool were used to evaluate the quality of the studies and the risk of bias, respectively. Exercise Interventions Content Assessment, using the proforma provided in the CERT, and adherence were extracted from the included manuscripts. Data were extracted by two independent assessors using a standardized form. Meta-analyses were conducted with the R statistical program using fixed or random effects models according to the heterogeneity assessed with I EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twelve RCTs (N.=475) were included. Home self-training was similar and no differences were found at 12 weeks from supervised exercise program, either alone or combined with standard physiotherapy treatment on Visual Analogic Scale (VAS) (SMD, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.26, P=0.66); Constant-Murley Score (CS) (SMD, -0.82; 95% CI, -1.05 to -0-60, P=0.64); and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) (SMD, 1; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.26, P=0.93). It was impossible to include adherence in the meta-analysis due to the small number of studies reporting this data and the heterogeneity of the criteria for accepting adequate adherence to the prescribed exercise program.
conclusionsHome self-training might be equally effective as outpatient and supervised exercise, isolated or combined with the usual physiotherapy, in terms of primary outcomes. However, the lack of information on adherence rates, the content of the exercise or how it is performed is worrying. Furthermore, the heterogeneity of the criteria related to treatment adherence and compliance indicates that more literature is needed to relate the effect produced with the type of exercise and therapeutic adherence.
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.