Assessing the use of the frequency, etiology, direction, and severity classification system for shoulder instability in physical therapy research - A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to review the implementation of the Frequency, Etiology, Direction, and Severity (FEDS) classification for shoulder instability by the physical therapy scientific community since its publication in 2011. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on January 10, 2024 in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and SciELO databases, as well as Google Scholar. Studies investigating physical therapy interventions in people with shoulder instability, and reporting selection criteria for shoulder instability were considered eligible. A narrative synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included. None reported using the FEDS classification as eligibility criteria for shoulder instability. Only 42% of the studies provided data of all four criteria of the FEDS classification. The most reported criterion was direction (92%), followed by etiology (85%), severity (65%), and frequency (58%). The most common reported descriptor for profiling shoulder instability was "dislocation" (83.3%), followed by "first-time" (66.7%), "anterior" (62.5%), and "traumatic" (59.1%). Regarding other instability classifications, only one study (4%) used the Thomas & Matsen classification, and two (8%) the Stanmore classification. CONCLUSIONS: The FEDS classification system has not been embraced enough by the physical therapy scientific community since its publication in 2011.

Content reporting and effectiveness of therapeutic exercise in the management of massive rotator cuff tears: A systematic review with 490 patients.

Background: Massive rotator cuff tears (MRCT) account for a substantial fraction of tears above the age of 60 years. However, there are no clear criteria for prescription parameters within therapeutic exercise treatments. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects and characteristics of therapeutic exercise treatments in patients with MRCT. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, SciELO, Scopus and EMBASE from inception to August 2022. Studies were included if they evaluated the effects of exercise on patients with MRCT. The risk of bias was evaluated and the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) was also used. A narrative synthesis without meta-analysis was performed. Results: One randomized controlled trial, two non-randomized studies, six non-controlled studies, one case series and four retrospective studies were included. They ranged from serious to moderate risk of bias. The CERT reflected a poor description of the exercise programmes. Studies showed a pattern of improvements in most patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) surpassing the MCID, and active elevation range of motion. Conclusions: There is limited evidence that exercise and co-interventions are effective in the management of some patients with MRCT, based on a systematic review without meta-analysis. Future research should improve content reporting. Level of evidence: IV.

Prescription of therapeutic exercise in migraine, an evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

The main objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide a series of recommendations for healthcare and exercise professionals, such as neurologists, physical therapists, and exercise physiologists, regarding exercise prescription for patients with migraine.This guideline was developed following the methodology and procedures recommended in the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE). The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were evaluated with the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). A systematic literature review was performed and an established appraisal process was employed to rate the quality of relevant scientific research (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology).The evaluation of the current evidence, the elaboration of the grades of recommendation, and their validation show a B grade of recommendation for aerobic exercise, moderate-continuous aerobic exercise, yoga, and exercise and lifestyle recommendations for the improvement of symptoms, disability, and quality of life in patients with migraine. Relaxation techniques, high-intensity interval training, low-intensity continuous aerobic exercise, exercise and relaxation techniques, Tai Chi, and resistance exercise obtained a C grade of recommendation for the improvement of migraine symptoms and disability.

Kinetic chain revisited: consensus expert opinion on terminology, clinical reasoning, examination, and treatment in people with shoulder pain.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to reach consensus on the most appropriate terminology and issues related to clinical reasoning, examination, and treatment of the kinetic chain (KC) in people with shoulder pain among an international panel of experts. METHODS: A 3-round Delphi study that involved an international panel of experts with extensive clinical, teaching, and research experience in the study topic was conducted. A search equation of terms related to the KC in Web of Science and a manual search were used to find the experts. Participants were asked to rate items across 5 different domains (terminology, clinical reasoning, subjective examination, physical examination, and treatment) using a 5-point Likert-type scale. An Aiken coefficient of validity (V) ≥0.7 was considered indicative of group consensus. RESULTS: The participation rate was 30.2% (n = 16), whereas the retention rate was high throughout the 3 rounds (100%, 93.8%, and 100%). A total of 15 experts from different fields and countries completed the study. After the 3 rounds, consensus was reached on 102 items: 3 items were included in the "terminology" domain; 17 items, in the "rationale and clinical reasoning" domain; 11 items, in the "subjective examination" domain; 44 items, in the "physical examination" domain; and 27 items, in the "treatment" domain. Terminology was the domain with the highest level of agreement, with 2 items achieving an Aiken V of 0.93, whereas the domains of physical examination and treatment of the KC were the 2 areas with less consensus. Together with the terminology items, 1 item from the treatment domain and 2 items from the rationale and clinical reasoning domain reached the highest level of agreement (V = 0.93 and V = 0.92, respectively). CONCLUSION: This study defined a list of 102 items across 5 different domains (terminology, rationale and clinical reasoning, subjective examination, physical examination, and treatment) regarding the KC in people with shoulder pain. The term "KC" was preferred and a agreement on a definition of this concept was reached. Dysfunction of a segment in the chain (ie, weak link) was agreed to result in altered performance or injury to distal segments. Experts considered it important to assess and treat the KC in particular in throwing or overhead athletes and agreed that no one-size-fits-all approach exists when implementing shoulder KC exercises within the rehabilitation process. Further research is now required to determine the validity of the identified items.

International physical therapists consensus on clinical descriptors for diagnosing rotator cuff related shoulder pain: A Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of standardized criteria for diagnosing rotator cuff related shoulder pain (RCRSP). OBJECTIVE: To identify the most relevant clinical descriptors for diagnosing RCRSP. METHODS: A Delphi study was conducted through use of an international physical therapists expert panel. A 3-round Delphi survey involving an international panel of physical therapists experts with extensive clinical, teaching, and research experience was conducted. A search query was performed in Web of Science, along with a manual search, to find the experts. The first round was composed of items obtained from a previous pilot Delphi study along with new items proposed by the experts. Participants were asked to rate items across six clinical domains using a five-point Likert scale. An Aiken's Validity Index ≥ 0.7 was considered indicative of group consensus. RESULTS: Fifteen experts participated in the Delphi survey. After the three rounds, consensus was reached on 18 clinical descriptors: 10 items were included in the "subjective examination" domain, 1 item was included in the "patient-reported outcome measures" domain, 3 items in the "diagnostic examination" domain, 2 items in the "physical examination" domain", and 2 items in the "functional tests" domain. No items reached consensus within the "special tests" domain. The reproduction of symptoms in relation to the application of load, the performance of overhead activities, and the need of active and resisted movement assessment were some of the results with greatest consensus. CONCLUSION: In this Delphi study, a total of 18 clinical descriptors across six clinical domains were agreed upon for diagnosing RCRSP.