Effectiveness of scapular mobilization in patients with primary adhesive capsulitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

dc.contributor.authorOlguín Huerta, Cristian Rodrigo.
dc.contributor.authorAraya Quintanilla, Felipe.
dc.contributor.authorMoncada Ramírez, Victoria.
dc.contributor.authorEstrella Flores, Evelin.
dc.contributor.authorCuyul Vásquez, Iván.
dc.contributor.authorGutiérrez Espinoza, Héctor J.
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-03T19:20:33Z
dc.date.available2024-09-03T19:20:33Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.description.abstractBackground: The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of scapular mobilization on range of motion, shoulder disability, and pain intensity in patients with primary adhesive capsulitis (AC). Methods: An electronic search was performed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, CENTRAL, LILACS, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases up to March 2023. The eligibility criteria for selected studies included randomized clinical trials that included scapular mobilization with or without other therapeutic interventions for range of motion, shoulder disability, and pain intensity in patients older than 18 years with primary AC. Two authors independently performed the search, study selection, and data extraction, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Results: Six randomized clinical trials met the eligibility criteria. For scapular mobilization versus other therapeutic interventions, there was no significant difference in the effect sizes between groups: the standard mean difference was -0.16 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.87 to 0.56; P =.66) for external rotation, -1.01 (95% CI = -2.33 to 0.31; P =.13) for flexion, -0.29 (95% CI = -1.17 to 0.60; P =.52) for shoulder disability, and 0.65 (95% CI = -0.42 to 1.72; P =.23) for pain intensity. Conclusions: Scapular mobilization with or without other therapeutic interventions does not provide a significant clinical benefit regarding active shoulder range of motion, disability, or pain intensity in patients with primary AC, compared with other manual therapy techniques or other treatments; the quality of evidence was very low to moderate according to the grading of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation approach.
dc.facultadFacultad de Salud y Ciencias Sociales
dc.format.extent9 páginas
dc.format.extent869.4Kb
dc.format.mimetypePDF
dc.identifier.citationMedicine (United States), 102(22), 9 p.
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/MD.0000000000033929
dc.identifier.issn0025-7974
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorio.udla.cl/xmlui/handle/udla/1514
dc.identifier.urihttps://journals.lww.com/md-journal/pages/currenttoc.aspx
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherLippincott Williams and Wilkins
dc.rightsCreative Commons Non Commercial (CC BY-NC)
dc.sourceMedicine (United States)
dc.subjectAdhesive capsulitis
dc.subjectFrozen shoulder
dc.subjectMusculoskeletal manipulations
dc.subjectRange of motion
dc.subjectScapular mobilization
dc.subject.lcshMeta-análisis
dc.titleEffectiveness of scapular mobilization in patients with primary adhesive capsulitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
dc.typeArtículo
dc.udla.catalogadorCBM
dc.udla.indexWoS
dc.udla.indexScience Citation Index Expanded
dc.udla.indexScopus
dc.udla.indexDOAJ
dc.udla.indexEMBASE
dc.udla.indexMEDLINE

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
206.pdf
Size:
869.41 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

Collections