↓ Skip to main content

Manipulation under anesthesia versus physiotherapy treatment in stage two of a frozen shoulder: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
215 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Manipulation under anesthesia versus physiotherapy treatment in stage two of a frozen shoulder: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12891-017-1763-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tim Kraal, Bertram The, Ronald Boer, M. P. van den Borne, Koen Koenraadt, Pjotr Goossens, Denise Eygendaal

Abstract

There is no consensus about the optimal treatment strategy for frozen shoulders (FS). Conservative treatment consisting of intra-articular corticosteroid infiltrations and physiotherapy are considered appropriate for most patients. However, with a conservative strategy, patients experience a prolonged rehabilitation period with a considerable amount of pain and disabilities in daily life. Also, at long term, a residual amount of pain and restriction of range of motion is frequently reported. Manipulation under anesthesia is a short and relative simple procedure with the potential to rapidly reduce symptoms and restore the range of motion. The objective of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of MUA followed by a PT program compared to a PT program alone, in the treatment of patients with a stage two FS. We hypothesize that the course of the disease can be shortened with MUA with a quicker functional recovery. This is a prospective, single center, randomized controlled trial. Eligible patients will be allocated to either the manipulation (MUA) group or the physiotherapy alone (PT) group. In the MUA group manipulation will be performed under interscalene block, directly followed by an intensive physiotherapy treatment protocol, with the goal to maintain the obtained range of motion. Patients allocated to the PT group are given advice and education and receive a written protocol to hand out to their physical therapist based on the recent guideline of the Dutch Shoulder Network for the treatment of frozen shoulders. Descriptive statistics will be used to describe the sample size, patients demographics, presence of diabetes mellitus, range of motion, duration of symptoms till randomization and will be presented for each treatment group. The SPADI is used as primary functional outcome parameter. Secondary outcome parameters are; OSS, NPRS, EQ-5D 3-L, passive range of motion, WORQ-UP, duration of symptoms, usage of analgesics and adverse events. A sample size of 41 subjects in each group was calculated. Follow up is planned after 1,3 and 12 months. The length of physiotherapy treatment in both groups is variable, depending on individual progression. Differences between groups in outcome parameters will be analysed using the linear mixed modelling and the restricted maximum likelihood ratio technique for estimating the model parameters. Successful completion of this trial will provide evidence on the best treatment strategy for patients with a stage two frozen shoulder. The results of this study can lead to a better understanding for the role of manipulation in the treatment of frozen shoulders. This trial is registered in the Dutch Trial Register under the number NTR6182 on the 20th of February 2017.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 215 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 215 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 38 18%
Student > Master 19 9%
Other 14 7%
Student > Postgraduate 14 7%
Researcher 11 5%
Other 36 17%
Unknown 83 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 50 23%
Sports and Recreations 5 2%
Computer Science 2 <1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 <1%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 93 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 April 2021.
All research outputs
#5,632,078
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,029
of 4,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,472
of 324,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#21
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,091 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,708 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.