€¦ · web viewappendix a. search strategy for ovid medline. pathology terms. 1. joint...
TRANSCRIPT
The Efficacy of Exercise for MDI
Appendix A
Search Strategy for Ovid Medline
Pathology Terms
1. Joint Instability/ or Multidirectional Instability.mp.2. joint instability.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, protocol supplementary concept, rare disease supplementary concept, unique identifier]3. unstab*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, protocol supplementary concept, rare disease supplementary concept, unique identifier]4. Atraumatic Instability.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, protocol supplementary concept, rare disease supplementary concept, unique identifier]5. joint laxity.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, protocol supplementary concept, rare disease supplementary concept, unique identifier]6. hypermob*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, protocol supplementary concept, rare disease supplementary concept, unique identifier]7. recurr* sublux*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, protocol supplementary concept, rare disease supplementary concept, unique identifier]8. joint hyperextensib*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, protocol supplementary concept, rare disease supplementary concept, unique identifier]9. Shoulder Dislocation/10. dislocat*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, protocol supplementary concept, rare disease supplementary concept, unique identifier]11. hyperlaxity.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, protocol supplementary concept, rare disease supplementary concept, unique identifier]12. congenital instability.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, protocol supplementary concept, rare disease supplementary concept, unique identifier]13. loose shoulder joint syndrome.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, protocol supplementary concept, rare disease supplementary concept, unique identifier]14. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13
Anatomic Region Terms
15. Shoulder Joint/ or Shoulder/16. shoulder.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, protocol supplementary concept, rare disease supplementary concept, unique identifier]
1
704705706707708709710711712713714715716717718719720721722723724725726727728729730731732733734735736737738739740741742743744745746747748749750751752753
The Efficacy of Exercise for MDI
17. glenohumeral.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, protocol supplementary concept, rare disease supplementary concept, unique identifier]18. 15 or 16 or 17
Intervention Terms
19. Exercise Movement Techniques/ or Exercise/ or Exercise Therapy/ or exercise.mp.20. Rehabilitation/21. rehabil*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, protocol supplementary concept, rare disease supplementary concept, unique identifier]22. Physical Therapy Modalities/ or physical therapy.mp. or Physical Therapy Specialty/23. non-operative.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, protocol supplementary concept, rare disease supplementary concept, unique identifier]24. Resistance Training/25. strength.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, protocol supplementary concept, rare disease supplementary concept, unique identifier]26. gym.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, protocol supplementary concept, rare disease supplementary concept, unique identifier]27. physiotherapy.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, protocol supplementary concept, rare disease supplementary concept, unique identifier]28. resistance.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, protocol supplementary concept, rare disease supplementary concept, unique identifier]29. conservative.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, protocol supplementary concept, rare disease supplementary concept, unique identifier]30. treat*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, protocol supplementary concept, rare disease supplementary concept, unique identifier]31. kinesiotherapy.mp.32. muscle train*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, protocol supplementary concept, rare disease supplementary concept, unique identifier]33. 19 or 20 or 21 or 22 or 23 or 24 or 25 or 26 or 27 or 28 or 29 or 30 or 31 or 3234. 14 and 18 and 3
2
754755756757758759760761762763764765766767768769770771772773774775776777778779780781782783784785786787788789790791792793794795796
The Efficacy of Exercise for MDI
Appendix B
Guidelines for the Application of the Tool for Quality Assessment of Studies.
External Validity
Representative: Studies received a if all of the participants in a group had clinically
diagnosed MDI (as outlined in the inclusion criteria of this review) or if the outcomes
and data of participants with clinically diagnosed MDI were reported and analyzed
separately.
Participation Rate: Studies received a if participation rate for the exercise based
group was reported and was 80% or more. Studies received a if participation rate
was below 80% or if participation rate was not reported at all.
Were outcome measures clinically relevantU Studies received a if the outcome tool
could be applied in the majority of clinical settings and administered by a trained
physiotherapist, medical doctor or surgeon.
Internal Validity
Performance.
Exercise intervention observed by expertU Studies received a if the exercise based
management was supervised by a physiotherapist, medical doctor or surgeon.
If more than one therapist is administering the intervention; has an attempt been
made to standardize the interventionU Studies received a if they outlined
standardized instructions that were given to patients on exercises (including dosage,
frequency and duration) or the exercises were clearly outlined in the study for the
reviewer. Studies received a U if it was unknown if more than one therapist was
administering the intervention or if it was unknown if the intervention was
standardized.
3
797
798799800801802803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
The Efficacy of Exercise for MDI
Detection.
Were outcomes measured in the study sensitive enough and/or responsive enough to
measure clinical changes in this populationU
Sensitivity to change refers to the capacity of instruments to measure change
statistically. Responsiveness addresses the detection of clinically relevant change 7.
Studies were given a if they used at least one of the following outcome measures;
the Melbourne Instability Shoulder Score (MISS), the Western Ontario
Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), the Oxford Instability Score (OIS)
or the Shoulder Rating Questionnaire (SRQ). These outcome
measures have been shown to be reliable and responsive to change
in the shoulder instability population 22.
Studies received a U if they used any of the following outcome measures: the
American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES), the Athletic
Shoulder Outcome Rating Scale (ASORS) and the Simple Shoulder
Test (SST), as they may be moderately responsive for patients with
shoulder instability 22. Studies received a if they used the Row
Score, Modified Rowe Score, Shoulder Rating Questionnaire,
Disabilities of the Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, and the
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score, as these scales
have either been found to be minimally responsive for patients with
shoulder instability or their development and testing has not been
evaluated 22. Studies received a if they used a dynamometer as this has
been shown to be sensitive enough to measure changes in muscle strength 5 or used
4
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
The Efficacy of Exercise for MDI
other measurement tools that the reviewers deem not susceptible to a high level of
measurement bias ( e.g.: computed aided software and electrodes to measure muscle
contraction). Studies also received a U If other scales were used that
have not been shown to be sensitive or responsive for patients with
shoulder instability in the literature.
Adequate time to follow upU Studies were given a if time to follow up was at least 4
weeks as short term studies have shown that most strength gains occur in the first 4-8
weeks of training 18.
Attrition.
Completeness: Studies were given a if the percentage in the final analysis was 80%
or more, or a full description of those lost to follow up was not suggestive of bias.
Selection Bias/Confounding.
Balance between groups if more than oneU If studies compared 2 or more groups
with the same intervention, studies were given a if the groups were similar in
patient characteristics (e.g.: both groups MDI without a history of trauma).
Adjust for confounder in statistical analysisU Studies were given a if they adjusted
their statistical analysis based on components that may have confounded their results
such as patients with a history of trauma, or prior surgery or drop outs.
Reporting.
Were testing procedures for diagnosis clearly defined so that it could be reproducedU
Studies received a if the authors reported the name of the diagnosis tools and how
they were carried out (e.g. position of the patient), and a U if the only the names of the
tests were mentioned.
Intervention clearly outlinedU Studies received a if a description of the duration of
the program (in weeks or months), the dosage (sets and reps) and an explanation of
5
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
The Efficacy of Exercise for MDI
the types of exercises were given. Studies received a U if two of the prescription
parameters above were mentioned. Studies were given a . if one or none of the
prescription parameters above were mentioned.
Reliability and validity of diagnostic measures/outcome measures reportedU Studies
received a if they reported the validity and/or reliability of their diagnostic tools
and outcome measures used, and were given a if this was not reported.
Is the size of the effect clinically importantU Studies received a if the effect size
was 0.5 and above. A value of 0.5 is interpreted as a medium clinical effect by
Cohen’s d6.
6
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
The Efficacy of Exercise for MDI
Appendix C
The GRADE Approach
Categories of the quality of evidence
High: There is high confidence that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of
the effect.
Moderate: There is moderate confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is
likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is
substantially different.
Low: The panel’s confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be
substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very Low: There is little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to
be substantially different from the estimate of effect.
Definitions and justifications for assessing domains
Study Design: The GRADE’s approach to rating the quality of evidence begins with
the study design and then addresses five reasons to possibly rate down the quality of
evidence and three to possibly rate up the quality 11. In relation to the initial quality of
a body of evidence, Randomised Controlled Trials start with a ‘high’ rating and
observational studies with a ‘low’ rating1. In the event that a control or comparison
group is implicit, absent or unclear in a study, the study will start with an initial
7
704
705706707708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
The Efficacy of Exercise for MDI
grading of ‘very low’, as the lack of a control group limits our confidence in the effect
of the intervention 1.
Methodological quality limitation refers to the risk of bias of included trials. As
described in the quality assessment (Appendix C), studies were examined on five
types of bases (performance, detection, attrition, selection and reporting). The overall
quality assessment rating for each study, investigating the outcome of interest, was
used to grade this domain. Following GRADE guidelines 8, 12, studies were
downgraded if, collectively for the outcome; there was a very serious risk of bias (-2)
or serious risk of bias (-1).
(0)No serious risk of bias overall = all studies considered low risk of of bias
overall.
(-1)a Serious risk of bias overall = At least one study considered moderate risk
of bias overall (and others were low).
(-2)b Very serious risk of bias overall = At least one study considered high risk
of bias overall (and others were low or moderate).
Consistency refers to the similarity of treatment effect estimates for each outcome
across the trials. Trial results were considered consistent when directions, effect size
and statistical significance were considered similar enough to draw the same
conclusion 21.
Consistency in direction was defined as 75% or more of the included trials showing
either benefit or no benefit, and consistency of effect when 75% or more of the trials
showing a clinically important or unimportant treatment effect based on the minimum
clinically important difference for the outcome measured in the review 13. If studies
were deemed appropriate to combine in a meta analyses, prior to meta-analysis,
8
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
The Efficacy of Exercise for MDI
clinically homogenous trials were first assessed for statistical heterogeneity and in this
situation consistency was defined as absence of statistical heterogeneity ( p>0.1, I2
less than 30 %)11, 19.
The authors hypothesised that due to the poor quality of some included trials, CI’s and
effect sizes may not be available, and therefore the ability to calculate the statistical
variation across studies (I2) would not be possible. In this case, judgments on
consistency across different data sets, and thus treatment effects cannot be made, and
therefore the domain was deemed not applicable.
The criteria for downgrading in the presence and absence of available data are
outlined below:
(0) Direction, clinical effect and I2 all reveal the absence of clinical
heterogeneity.
(-1)c In the case that CI’s were available: A quality point was deducted for
statistically heterogeneity 2. In the case of clinically heterogeneous trials a
quality point was deducted for inconsistent or conflicting (or varying) results 2.
(N/A)#- The domain was considered not applicable if there was only one trial
intervention per outcome 8.
(N/A)+-The domain was not considered applicable if the majority of trials
could not provide data to calculate CI’s and thus between group or within
group treatment effects.
(N/A)^ - The domain was considered not applicable if statistical variation
across studies (I2) was unable to be calculated (despite consistent direction of
9
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
The Efficacy of Exercise for MDI
recommendations and clinical effect) therefore judgements on consistency
across different data sets, and thus treatment effects cannot be made.
Directness refers to the extent to which the people, interventions and outcome
measures are similar to those of interest 19, 21. GRADE distinguishes two types of
indirectness. Firstly, indirectness may be due to differences in populations,
interventions and outcomes of interest across studies and encompasses the presence of
clinical heterogeneity 3. Secondly, a conceptually different indirectness occurs when
an intervention has not been tested in a head to head comparison 10. The criteria for
deduction of quality points for indirectness are outlined below:
Type 1 Indirectness
(-1)d A Quality point was deducted if the outcome measures investigated was
not patient specific, and was impairment based rather than activity based or
patient focused 10. Impairment measures included items such as strength
measures, EMG measures, kinematic measures and joint sliding mechanics.
Patient focused measures included patient satisfaction scales, return to
work/sport/activity scales, Constant and Rowe scales and pain scales.
(-1)e A Quality point was deducted if the interventions across studies were
deemed significantly heterogeneous and/or sufficient information was lacking
regarding description of the intervention/s and therefore directness in relation
to intervention could not be assessed. It is rare for interventions to be identical
across studies, and a judgement to deduct a quality point should only be done
if the differences are considered sufficient to make a difference in an outcome
likely 10. However, a quality point will be deducted if the authors deem that
the majority of the intervention/s described could not be implemented with the
10
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
The Efficacy of Exercise for MDI
rigor and technical sophistication that the data came from; due to either lack of
information on the intervention characteristics or lack of technical equipment
that would be available in the common rehabilitation setting 10.
Type 2 indirectness
(-1)f A Quality point was deducted if the majority of interventions for that
outcome were not tested against a control or comparison group.
The combined effect of all types of indirectness is not a simple additive process. In
general, evidence based on outcomes that are not of primary interest should usually
trigger rating down, whereas other types of indirectness require a much more
considered judgement 10. Indirectness may be more heavily weighted for one subset
of type 1 directness than for others. Therefore only a total of 1 quality point can be
deduced for type 1 indirectness even if studies reveal indirectness for each of
intervention and non patient focused outcomes. The domain can be downgraded 2
points (-2) if the studies for the outcome of interest are judged as displaying
indirectness for one or more of type 1 indirectness and type 2 indirectness.
Precision refers to the number of trials, participants and the width of the CI for each
outcome 9. There is no empirical evidence for defining imprecise or sparse data 21.
Therefore for the purposes of this review the rules for deduction of quality points are
as follows:
(-1)g Only one trial reported an outcome for the chosen comparison regardless
of the sample size or the confidence interval 9.
11
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
The Efficacy of Exercise for MDI
(-1)h If studies were combined in a meta-analysis and the confidence interval
is sufficiently wide that the estimate is consistent with conflicting
recommendations or, (-1)i fewer than 75 % of studies present data that can be
included in a meta-analyses 9, or (-1)i the majority of studies could not provide
data to calculate CI’s and effect sizes.
(-2)j if only one trial reported for an outcome of interest and could not provide
data to calculate CI’s and effect sizes.
Publication (reporting) bias as described within the Cochrane Handbook 13 was only
considered present if actual evidence was found 19
12
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
The Efficacy of Exercise for MDIAppendix D
Quality Assessment of Included Studies
Adapted from “ HIV and male circumcision-a systematic review with assessment of quality studies” by Siegfried et al.,23 2005, Lancet Infectious Diseases, p. 168. indicates that the measure was adequately addressed in the study, indicates that the measure was not adequately assessed in the study, U indicates that the measure was partly addressed in the study or we were unable to determine if it was addressed in the study, N/A = Not Applicable in the study.
13
Study Tillander et al,24
Kiss et al,16
Illyés et al15,
Kiss et al,17
Ide et al,14
Misamore, et al,20
Burkhead&Rockwood4
External Validity
Representative Participation rate Were outcomes measures used clinically relevantU
Internal Validity
Performance Control or comparison groupU
Blinding/ Attempt for independent assessor
U
Exercise intervention observed by expert
U U U U U UIf more than one therapist is administering the intervention; has an attempt been made to standardize the interventionU
U U U U U U
Detection Baseline Measurement
Post treatment Measurement
Blinding/ Attempt for independent assessor
U U U U
Were outcomes measured in the study sensitive enough or responsive enough to measure clinical changes in the populationU
U
Adequate time to follow up
Attrition Completeness U Selection Bias/ Confounding
Inc/Exc criteria outlined for study’s definition of MDI
U U
Similar group characteristicsU
U No history of surgical managementU
U UExclusion of Hx of TraumaU
U Imaging to exclude structural lesionU
Adjust for confounder in statistical analysesU
U U N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Reporting Bias
Aims of the study clearly statedU
Author’s definition of MDI made clearU
U UWere testing procedures for diagnosis clearly defined so that it could be reproducedU
U U U U U
Intervention clearly outlinedU(method and dosage)
U U U
Outcomes clearly describedU
Reliability and validity of diagnostic measures reportedU
Reliability and validity of outcome measures reportedU
Is the size of the effect clinically importantU
N/A N/A N/AAdverse effects reportedU
p value setU
839840
842
The Efficacy of Exercise for MDI
14
843
The Efficacy of Exercise for MDI
Appendix E
Results of Included Studies
Study Before intervention After intervention Summary
Tillander et al, 48 No measures Constant score: Median (Range)Ex only: 82 (68 – 98)
No statistical calculations for Constant Score.Unable to determine the effect of exercise alone for Constant Score.
Rowe score: Median (Range)Ex only: 55 (40 – 100)
Unable to determine the effect of exercise alone for Rowe Score
Satisfied/UnsatisfiedEx only: 9/20 satisfied, 11/20 not satisfied
45 % satisfied after exercise
Return to Sport/No return to sportEx only: 7/11 return, 4/11 no return
No statistical calculations for return to sport.64% return to sport after exercise.Overall 44% of exercise group went on to have surgery.
Kiss et al, 32 No measures Subjective Shoulder Rating System (Mean/SD)No Hx. of Surgery + Ex: 79 (14) Unable to determine the effect of exercise alone for Subjective Shoulder Rating System.
Patient Satisfaction:No Hx. Surgery + Ex.Cured / Improved: 38/62Remained the same: 23/62Worse: 1/62
Patient Satisfaction After Ex.
61% Cured/Improved37% Remained the same2% Worse
Rowe score: Mean (SD)No Hx. of Surgery+ Ex: 50 (29)
Unable to determine the effect of exercise alone for the Rowe Score.
Constant:No Hx. Surgery + Ex.38 / 62 –no / mild disability9 / 62 – moderate
Constant Score After Ex.61% no / mild disability15 % moderate disability24% severe or total disability
15
704705706707708709
The Efficacy of Exercise for MDI
15 / 62 – severe or totalMean(SD): 80 (17)
Illyés et al,27 Constant score:Ex only:Male : 92Female: 93
Constant score:Ex only:Male: 95Female: 94
No standard deviations/no statistical analyses in article for Constant Score.
Maximum EMG:Maximum amplitude of normalised EMG was significantly higher in stabilizing muscles (upper trapezius, infraspinatus, posterior deltoid) and significantly lower in prime movers (pectoralis major, middle deltoid, biceps) of MDI patients with all movements when compared to controls with normal shoulders.
(p=0.05)
Maximum EMG:Ex. only.
Short Term Rx:EMG of stabilizing muscles remained significantly higher (for all movements) and EMG of prime movers significantly lower (for pull, punch and elevation) when compared to controls (p<0.05).
Significant difference in biceps EMG only compared to before Rx EMG values of MDI group (p=.05).
Long Term Rx:EMG of stabilizing muscles remained significantly higher (for all movements) and EMG of prime movers significantly lower (for pull, punch and elevation) when compared to controls (p<0.05).Significant difference in most muscles for most movements compared to before Rx MDI, EMG values (p<0.05). In general a significant decrease EMG value for prime movers and significant increase in EMG values for stabilizing muscles.
Ex. only did not restore the normal muscle activity of muscles around the shoulder compared to controls, however long term exercise did significantly increase the maximum EMG amplitude of activity of most muscles compared to before treatment values of the MDI group (p<0.05).
Long term exercise Ex. only increased the activity of stabilizing muscles and reduced the activity of prime movers compared to controls.
Time BroadnessMDI groups:Significantly longer time broadness (on time) of muscles in MDI group compared to control with slow and fast throw (p = 0.008).
Time BroadnessEx only:
Short Term Rx:Time broadness significantly longer compared to control for slow throw. (p=0.03) and fast throw (p=0.01).No statistical significance in time broadness for slow throw (p=0.34) or fast throw (p=0.19) compared to before Rx MDI value.Long Term Rx:Time broadness was similar when compared to control group for Slow throw (p=0.07). Time broadness was significantly longer for fast throw (p=0.01) compared to controls. No statistical significance before and after MDI values for slow throw (p=0.24)
Long term exercise based treatment increases the proprioception of motion as there was no difference for time broadness (on time) between the MDI and control group (p=0.07) for slow throw only.
16
The Efficacy of Exercise for MDI
and fast throw (p=0.19).Kiss et al, 33 Kinematics:
1. Scapulothoracic Angle (ST)
MDI: 18.32Control: 27.46
Scapulothoracic Angle (ST)
Ex. only: 18.93, 12 weeks, 22.32, 36 wks.
Ex. only: ST remained significantly lower in MDI exercise group compared to controls at short term and long term follow up (p<0.05). ST increased significantly after exercise at long term follow up (p<0.05).
2. Glenohumeral Angle (GH)
MDI: 56.94Control: 48.09All patients with MDI had significant alterations in shoulder kinematics compared to controls. ST lower in MDI group and GH higher in MDI group compared to controls before treatment. (p<0.05).
Glenohumeral Angle (GH)
Ex. only: 57.08, 12 weeks, 46.03, 36 weeksEx. Only: GH remained significantly higher in MDI exercise group compared to controls at short term and long term follow up (p<0.05). GH decreased significantly compared to measures before exercise at long term follow up (p<0.05).
3. Relative DisplacementMDI: 0.227Control: 0.079Significantly larger range of joint sliding of all MDI patients compared to controls (p<0.001).
Relative Displacement
Ex. only: 0.241,12 wks, 0.134, 36 wksEx. only: Mean values of relative displacement centers remained significantly higher after short term and long term Rx compared to controls. Significant decrease observed after LT Rx compared with values before Rx (p<0.05).
Muscle Activity (on/off patterns)Sig. difference in muscle activity of all MDI patients compared to controls (p<0.001).
Muscle ActivityEx. only: Long term Rx significantly changed activity of middle and post deltoid, infraspinatus compared to values before Rx. Significant difference remains with control group at long term follow up (p<0.05).
Ex. Only: Long term Rx significantly changed the duration of certain muscles compared to measures before Rx (p<0.05) but normal muscle activity could not be restored compared to controls (p<0.05).
Ide et al,26 Rowe: mean 51.9 +/- 16.7Fair (59), Poor (14)
Rowe: mean 74.9 +/- 13.7Excellent (12), Good (36), Fair (24), Poor (1)
No significant difference for range of motionSignificantly improved after rehabilitation for; pain, numbness & stability (p<0.001) Overall 62 shoulders (84.9%) total scores improved.
IR mean peak torque1.05 +/- 0.24kg.m
IR mean peak torque : 1.26 +/- 0.27 kg.mIncrease 33.4%
Significant increase after exercise intervention (p<0.05).
ER peak torque1.33 +/- 0.33kg.m
ER peak torque : 1.84 +/- 0.39 kg.mMean gain: 23.4%
Significant increase after exercise intervention (p<0.05).
ER/IR peak torque ER/IR peak torque Significant decrease after exercise intervention to represent normative values (p<0.05).
17
The Efficacy of Exercise for MDI
84.7% +/-23.0% 70.5% +/-13.7% (p<0.5)Misamore et al,37 No measures Modified Rowe at 8 years:
5/36 Excellent12/36 Good
No statistics reported in article for Modified Rowe. Overall 47% of patients had a good to excellent result with exercise.
Grading Scale (0-10):
2 years:Pain: 20/39 good-excellentStability: 21/39 good –excellent8 years:Pain: 23/36 good – excellentStability 17/36 good- excellent
No statistics reported in article for Grading Scale.
After Exercise:51% Good- excellent result for pain at 2 years54% Good –excellent result for stability at 2 years63% Good- excellent result for pain at 8 years47% Good –excellent result for stability at 8 years
Limitations (Sport/ADL’s)2 yrs: 12/39 return to sport8 yrs: 7 given up all sports9 lifestyle or employment changes due to instability.
No statistics reported in article for Limitations.At 2 years 31% had given up sportsAt 8 years 41 % had altered ADL’s due to condition.
Overall Status2 years: 28/39 Much better (72%)8 years: 20/36 Much better – better (56%)
At 2 year follow up 66% lost to surgery or had poor or fair outcome. Of those treated with Ex. 72% rated their shoulder as better or much better.At 8 year follow up 70% treated with Surgery or had poor or fair outcome.Of those treated with Ex. 56% rated their shoulder as better or much better.
Burkhead and Rockwood,8
No measures Rowe score:MDI invol.sublux: 29/33 (88%)good/excellent resultsMDI vol. sublux: 6/6 (100%) good/excellent results
No statistical calculations in article.88% MDI with involuntary subluxations and 100% of MDI with voluntary subluxations had good to excellent result after exercise.
Time to become stable: MDI invol.sublux5 weeks (2 – 12)14 weeks (6 – 36) maximum stability
MDI= Multidirectional Instability, Ex=exercise, Rx= treatment, EMG=Electromyographic, Hx = History, ICS=Inferior Capsular Shift, Sublux.=subluxation, Invol.=involuntary, Ant=Anterior, Post=Posterior. Definitions: ST Angle=Scapulothoracic Angle: Angle formed by spatial vectors between the proximal and distal points of the sternum, the acromion and the scapula spine (Angle of movement contributed to elevation by the scapula). GH Angle=Glenohumeral Angle: Angle formed by spatial vectors between the insertion points of the proximal deltoid and the radial lateral epicondyle and the acromion and the scapula spine (Angle of movement contributed to elevation by the glenohumeral joint). Time Broadness: The time elapsed in the percentage of the movement cycle between the peak EMG of the first muscle to reach maximal activity and the peak EMG of the last muscle to reach maximal activity 33. Time broadness describes to what extent the muscles are involved in producing a motion simultaneously during a motion cycle.
18
710711712713714715
716
The Efficacy of Exercise for MDI
References for Appendices
1. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al.
GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011
Apr;64(4):401-6. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015
2. BMJ. Clinical Evidence: What is GRADEU 2011 [cited 2011 February 24].
Available from: http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/x/set/static/ebm/learn/665072.html.
3. Brozek JL, Akl EA, Alonso-Coello P, Lang D, Jaeschke R, Williams JW, et al.
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice
guidelines. Part 1 of 3. An overview of the GRADE approach and grading quality of
evidence about interventions. Allergy. 2009 May;64(5):669-77. 10.1111/j.1398-
9995.2009.01973.x
4. Burkhead WZ, Rockwood CA. Treatment of instability of the shoulder with an
exercise program. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, American Volume.
1992;74A:890-6.
5. Burnham RS, Bell G, Olenik L, Reid D. Shoulder abduction strength
measurement in football players: Reliability and validity of two field tests. Clinical
Journal of Sports Medicine. 1995;5:90-4.
19
611
612
613614615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
The Efficacy of Exercise for MDI
6. Coe R. It's the Effect Size, Stupid: What effect size is and why it is important.
Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association 12-14 September,
2002; University of Exeter, England 2002.
7. Corzillius M, Fortin P, Stucki G. Responsiveness and sensitivity to change of
SLE disease activity measures. Lupus. 1999;8(8):655-9.
10.1191/096120399680411416
8. Furlan AD, Gnam WH, Carnide N, Irvin E, Amick BC, 3rd, Derango K, et al.
Systematic review of intervention practices for depression in the workplace. J Occup
Rehabil. 2012 Sep;22(3):312-21. 10.1007/s10926-011-9340-2
9. Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, Tulder Mv. 2009 Updated Method
Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine.
2009;34(18):1929-41. 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b1c99f
10. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Woodcock J, Brozek J, Helfand M, et al.
GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence--indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol.
2011 Dec;64(12):1303-10. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.04.014
11. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Woodcock J, Brozek J, Helfand M, et al.
GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency. J Clin
Epidemiol. 2011 Dec;64(12):1294-302. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.017
20
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
The Efficacy of Exercise for MDI
12. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, et al.
GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias).
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):407-15. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.017
13. Higgins JPT GS, editor. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. Version
5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from
http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. . 5.1.0 ed2011.
14. Ide J, Maeda S, Yamaga M, Morisawa K, Takagi K. Shoulder-strengthening
exercise with an orthosis for multidirectional shoulder instability: Quantitative
evaluation of rotational shoulder strength before and after the exercise program. J
Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003 July/August;12(4):342-5.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1058-2746%2802%2986886-0
15. Illyés Á, Kiss J, Kiss RM. Electromyographic analysis during pull, forward
punch, elevation and overhead throw after conservative treatment or capsular shift at
patient with multidirectional shoulder joint instability. Journal of Electromyography
and Kinesiology. 2009 12//;19(6):e438-e47.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2008.09.008
16. Kiss J, Damrel D, Mackie A, Neumann L, Wallace WA. Non-operative
treatment of multidirectional shoulder instability. Int Orthop. 2001;24(6):354-7.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002640000202
21
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
The Efficacy of Exercise for MDI
17. Kiss RM, Illyés Á, Kiss J. Physiotherapy vs. capsular shift and physiotherapy
in multidirectional shoulder joint instability. J Electromyogr Kinesiol.
2010;20(3):489-501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2009.09.001
18. Kraemer WJ, Adams K, Cafarelli E, Dudley GA, Dooly C, Feigenbaum MS,
et al. Progression Models in Resistance Training for Healthy Adults American
College of Sports Medicine 2002:364-80. 0195-9131/02/3402-0364/0
19. Miller J, Gross A, D'Sylva J, Burnie SJ, Goldsmith CH, Graham N, et al.
Manual therapy and exercise for neck pain: A systematic review. Man Ther. 2010 Jun
1. 10.1016/j.math.2010.02.007
20. Misamore GW, Sallay PI, Didelot W. A longitudinal study of patients with
multidirectional instability of the shoulder with seven- to ten-year follow-up. J
Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005 Sep-Oct;14(5):466-70. 10.1016/j.jse.2004.11.006
21. Oxman AD. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
GRADE Working Group. British Medical Journal 2004;328(7454):1-8.
10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490
22. Plancher KD, Lipnick SL. Analysis of evidence-based medicine for shoulder
instability. Arthroscopy. 2009 Aug;25(8):897-908. 10.1016/j.arthro.2009.03.017
23. Siegfried N, Muller M, Deeks J, Volmink J, Egger M, Low N, et al. HIV and
male circumcision—a systematic review with
22
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
The Efficacy of Exercise for MDI
assessment of the quality of studies. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2005;5:165-73.
10.1016/s1473-3099(05)01292-2
24. Tillander B, Lysholm M, Norlin R. Multidirectional hyperlaxity of the
shoulder: results of treatment. / Hyperlaxite pluridirectionnelle de l ' epaule: resultats
du traitement. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 1998;8(6):421-5.
23
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717