4.2 Review

Effect of supervised physiotherapy versus home exercise program in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

PHYSICAL THERAPY IN SPORT
Volume 41, Issue -, Pages 34-42

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2019.11.003

Keywords

Subacromial impingement syndrome; Supervised physiotherapy; Exercise therapy; Home exercise program; Randomized clinical trials; Meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine whether supervised physiotherapy is more effective for functional improvement and pain relief than a home exercise program in subjects with subacromial impingement syndrome. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Methods: An electronic search was performed in Medline, Central, Embase, PEDro, Lilacs, Cinahl, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases. The eligibility criteria for selecting studies included randomized clinical trials that compared supervised physiotherapy versus home exercise program, in the shoulder function, pain, and range of motion in subjects older than 18 years of age with a medical diagnosis of subacromial impingement syndrome treated conservatively. Results: Seven clinical trials met the eligibility criteria, and for the quantitative synthesis, four studies were included. The standardized mean difference for shoulder function was -0.14 points (95% CI: -1.04 to 0.76; p = 0.760), mean difference 0.21 cm (95% CI: 1.36 to 1.78; p = 0.790) for pain, and mean difference 0.62 (95% CI: -7.15 to 8.38; p = 0.880) for range of motion of flexion. Conclusion: Supervised physical therapy and home-based progressive shoulder strengthening and stretching exercises for the rotator cuff and scapular muscles are equally effective in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome treated conservatively. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available