SynthesisPloS one2026
Clinical efficacy of joint mobilization for shoulder impingement syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNo systematic review has examined the clinical effectiveness of mobilization for shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS). We aimed to evaluate clinical effectiveness for the use of mobilization in SIS.
methodsPubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published up to April 30, 2023. Randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effectiveness of mobilization for SIS were included. Literature was extracted using Endnote 20, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2.0. A meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4. This study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.
resultsNineteen randomized controlled trials (956 participants) were selected based on the inclusion criteria. Adding mobilization to traditional physical therapy reduced pain (mean difference [MD]=1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91 to 2.53, I2 = 97%, p < 0.00001), increased active range of motion (MD = 14.49, 95% CI: 8.46 to 20.53, I2 = 95%, p < 0.00001), and improved the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (MD = 5.95, 95% CI: 0.01 to 11.90, p = 0.05) and Constant-Murley scores (MD = 5.49, 95% CI: 0.78 to 10.19, p = 0.02). Joint mobilization was more effective in reducing pain (MD = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.19, p = 0.01) and increasing active range of motion (MD = 8.56, 95% CI: 2.31 to 14.82, p = 0.007) compared with sham mobilization. No statistically significant differences were found between physical therapy plus mobilization and physical therapy plus exercise.
conclusionMobilization may offer adjunctive, short-term benefits in improving the clinical symptoms of SIS when added to conventional treatments. Future studies should focus on evaluating the effects of mobilization as a stand-alone intervention, incorporate larger sample sizes and long-term follow-up, and conduct high-quality comparative trials to identify the most effective specific mobilization techniques.
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.