Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
The effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave therapy for frozen shoulder in patients with diabetes: randomized control trial |
Muthukrishnan R, Rashid AA, al-Alkharji F |
Journal of Physical Therapy Science 2019 Jul;31(7):493-497 |
clinical trial |
5/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
PURPOSE: This study examined the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy versus ultrasound therapy, combined with the mobilization and therapeutic exercise in both groups, in participants with diabetic frozen shoulder. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Twenty participants with diabetic frozen shoulder were divided into an experimental group who received extracorporeal shock wave therapy, mobilization and exercises (n = 10, mean 43.70) and the control group who received ultrasound, mobilization and exercises (n = 10, mean 45.50). The clinical outcomes, ie, (a) pain (b) active range of motions of the shoulder, (c) disability scores by Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scale and (d) global rating of change was measured weekly for four weeks. RESULTS: Significant improvements in pain, all active range of motions and disability scores were observed at the end of the 4th week in both groups. Additionally, the experimental group benefited significant pain reduction (median difference 7 in experimental versus 6 in control group), reduced number of therapy sessions and thus the costs of treatment compared to the control group. CONCLUSION: Extracorporeal shock wave therapy significantly reduced pain in people with diabetic frozen shoulder with a reduction of treatment cost compared to the control group.
|