SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Efficacy of mobilization with movement in chronic shoulder pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShoulder pain is common and often slow to resolve despite treatment. We assessed the efficacy of Mobilization With Movement (MWM) in chronic shoulder pain.
methodsA systematic review was conducted. Five electronic databases, including MEDLINE, were searched from inception to August 2, 2024. Only controlled trials comparing MWM to conservative interventions, sham mobilization, or no-intervention control in adults aged 18 − 65 years with chronic shoulder pain (mean duration ≥ 3 months) were included. The outcomes were patient-reported pain (primary), patient-reported disability, quality of life, and range of motion (ROM). Random effects meta-analyses were performed. Risk of bias was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale.
resultsTwenty-nine trials of adhesive capsulitis (AC) and six trials of subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS) were included. All active comparators were types of mobilization. AC analysis: MWM was significantly superior to other types of mobilization immediately post-therapy for improving pain (SMD = 1.03, 95% CI 0.59–1.46, n = 960), disability (SMD = 0.82, 95% CI 0.17–1.48, n = 361), external rotation ROM (SMD = 0.77, 95% CI 0.33–1.20, n = 992), and flexion ROM (SMD = 0.83, 95% CI 0.13–1.53, n = 727). Subgroup analyses demonstrated a significant superiority of MWM over Muscle Energy Techniques for reducing pain (SMD = 2.22, 95% CI 0.60–3.84, n = 271), and over Maitland mobilization for improving external rotation ROM (SMD = 0.74, 95% CI 0.38–1.09, n = 356). No significant differences were detected at 2–10-week follow-ups (n = 69–110). MWM was significantly superior to no-intervention control for pain, disability, and ROM immediately post-therapy. SAPS analysis: Although pain and ROM improvements were observed compared with no-intervention control, no significant differences were found versus sham mobilization. Quality of life was not assessed in any included trial. Risk of bias was moderate/high for AC trials and low/moderate for SAPS trials.
conclusionsIn chronic AC, MWM resulted in significant improvements in pain, disability, and ROM immediately post-therapy. Follow-up data were too limited to draw firm conclusions. For chronic SAPS, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute an effect of MWM. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42018109380.
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.