Corticosteroid injection for shoulder pain: single-blind randomized pilot trial in primary care

Corticosteroid Injection Methods for Frozen Shoulder: A Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of corticosteroid (CS) injection methods for frozen shoulder.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched up to May 6, 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated CS injection methods for frozen shoulder were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted independently by 2 authors. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2 tool.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A random-effects network meta-analysis was performed within a frequentist framework. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. A total of 66 RCTs involving 4491 patients were included. For short-term outcomes, 4-site injection (vs placebo [PLA]: standardized mean difference [SMD]=-2.20, 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.81 to -1.59 in pain; SMD=2.02; 95% CI, 1.39-2.65 in global function) was the most effective (low certainty). Rotator interval injection was the optimal treatment with moderate to high certainty (vs PLA: SMD=-1.07, 95% CI, -1.51 to -0.64 in pain; SMD=0.94, 95% CI, 0.49-1.40 in global function). For midterm outcomes, 4-site injection was most effective (vs PLA: SMD=-1.71, 95% CI, -2.41 to -1.01 in pain; SMD=2.22, 95% CI, 1.34-3.09 in global function; low certainty). Distension via rotator interval (D-RI) was the optimal treatment with moderate to high certainty (vs PLA: SMD=-1.10, 95% CI, -1.69 to -0.51 in pain; SMD=1.46, 95% CI, 0.73-2.20 in global function). Distension and intra-articular injection via anterior or posterior approaches produced effects equivalent to those of rotator interval injection and D-RI.

CONCLUSIONS

Rotator interval injection, distension, and intra-articular injection had equivalent effects on symptom relief. More RCTs are required to validate the superiority of multisite injections.

The effect of pre-operative shoulder injections on post-operative opioid use, infection and revision following shoulder arthroplasty

Background

Treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA) may include conservative management with use of intraarticular injections, prior to considering total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). The purpose of this study was to assess trends in the use of preoperative cortisone (CO) and hyaluronic acid (HA) injections, as well as investigate the relationship between injection use and infection or revision arthroplasty following TSA.

Methods

Pearl Driver was used to identify all patients undergoing TSA for GHOA between 2010 and 2018. Patients were categorized based on the type and number of injections they received. Outcomes of interest included post-operative opioid use, post-operative infection, and risk of revision surgery within 1 year of the index procedure.

Results

The incidence of patients receiving a CO or HA injections within 1 year of their TSA decreased by 83% and 54%, respectively. Patients who had received 1 or more steroid injections had higher odds of prolonged opiate use following surgery. Patients that received 1 or 2 CO injection prior to TSA had an increased risk of needing revision surgery.

Discussion

Use of intraarticular injections for the management of GHOA has declined. Patients receiving preoperative injections had increased odds of prolonged opiate use and the need for revision surgery.

A randomized clinical trial of glenohumeral joint steroid injection versus suprascapular nerve block in patients with frozen shoulder: a protocol for the Therapeutic Injections For Frozen Shoulder (TIFFS) study

Frozen shoulder is a common, painful condition that results in impairment of function. Corticosteroid injections are commonly used for frozen shoulder and can be given as glenohumeral joint (GHJ) injection or suprascapular nerve block (SSNB). Both injection types have been shown to significantly improve shoulder pain and range of motion. It is not currently known which is superior in terms of relieving patients' symptoms. This is the protocol for a randomized clinical trial to investigate the clinical effectiveness of corticosteroid injection given as either a GHJ injection or SSNB. The Therapeutic Injections For Frozen Shoulder (TIFFS) study is a single centre, parallel, two-arm, randomized clinical trial. Participants will be allocated on a 1:1 basis to either a GHJ corticosteroid injection or SSNB. Participants in both trial arms will then receive physiotherapy as normal for frozen shoulder. The primary analysis will compare the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) at three months after injection. Secondary outcomes include OSS at six and 12 months, range of shoulder movement at three months, and Numeric Pain Rating Scale, abbreviated Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, and EuroQol five-level five-dimension health index at three months, six months, and one year after injection. A minimum of 40 patients will be recruited to obtain 80% power to detect a minimally important difference of ten points on the OSS between the groups at three months after injection. The study is registered under ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier NCT04965376. The results of this trial will demonstrate if there is a difference in shoulder pain and function after GHJ injection or SSNB in patients with frozen shoulder. This will help provide effective treatment to patients with frozen shoulder.

Tailored exercise and manual therapy versus standardised exercise for patients with shoulder subacromial pain: a feasibility randomised controlled trial (the Otago MASTER trial)

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess whether it was feasible to conduct a full trial comparing a tailored versus a standardised exercise programme for patients with shoulder subacromial pain.

DESIGN

Two-arm, patient-blinded and assessor-blinded, randomised controlled feasibility trial.

METHODS

Twenty-eight participants with shoulder subacromial pain were randomly allocated into one of two intervention groups-tailored or standardised exercise. Participants in the tailored exercise programme received exercises and manual therapy tailored to their scapular and shoulder movement impairments. Participants in the standardised exercise programme received progressive strengthening exercise. The primary outcome measures were (1) the participant recruitment rate; (2) the proportion of participants enrolled from the total number screened; (3) drop-out rates; and (4) adherence to the rehabilitation programme. Other outcome measures were: (5) pain levels; (6) Patient-Specific Functional Scale; (7) the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index; and (8) pain self-efficacy. We compared changes in pain and disability scores between groups using a repeated mixed-model analysis of variance. Since this is a feasibility study, we did not adjust alpha for multiple comparisons, and considered 75% CI as the probability threshold at 3-month follow-up. Health-related quality of life was assessed using the Short-Form 12 and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated.

RESULTS

The recruitment rate was 3 participants per month, the proportion of participants enrolled was 23%, the drop-out rate was 14% and the overall adherence to the rehabilitation programme was 85%. No between-group differences were found for most outcome measures. Adverse events (n=2, only in the tailored group) were minor in nature and included skin injury or pain following taping.

CONCLUSIONS

Our feasibility trial showed that additional strategies are required for improving recruitment, enrolment and minimising drop-out of participants into the trial and making it feasible to conduct a full trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ANZCTR: 12617001405303.

Progressive exercise compared with best-practice advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, for rotator cuff disorders: the GRASP factorial RCT

BACKGROUND

Rotator cuff-related shoulder pain is very common, but there is uncertainty regarding which modes of exercise delivery are optimal and the long-term benefits of corticosteroid injections.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of progressive exercise compared with best-practice physiotherapy advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, in adults with a rotator cuff disorder.

DESIGN

This was a pragmatic multicentre superiority randomised controlled trial (with a 2 × 2 factorial design).

SETTING

Twenty NHS primary care-based musculoskeletal and related physiotherapy services.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged ≥ 18 years with a new episode of rotator cuff-related shoulder pain in the previous 6 months.

INTERVENTIONS

A total of 708 participants were randomised (March 2017-May 2019) by a centralised computer-generated 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 allocation ratio to one of four interventions: (1) progressive exercise (n = 174) (six or fewer physiotherapy sessions), (2) best-practice advice (n = 174) (one physiotherapy session), (3) corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise (n = 182) (six or fewer physiotherapy sessions) or (4) corticosteroid injection then best-practice advice (n = 178) (one physiotherapy session).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score over 12 months. Secondary outcomes included SPADI subdomains, the EuroQol 5 Dimensions, five-level version, sleep disturbance, fear avoidance, pain self-efficacy, return to activity, Global Impression of Treatment and health resource use. Outcomes were collected by postal questionnaires at 8 weeks and at 6 and 12 months. A within-trial economic evaluation was also conducted. The primary analysis was intention to treat.

RESULTS

Participants had a mean age of 55.5 (standard deviation 13.1) years and 49.3% were female. The mean baseline SPADI score was 54.1 (standard deviation 18.5). Follow-up rates were 91% at 8 weeks and 87% at 6 and 12 months. There was an overall improvement in SPADI score from baseline in each group over time. Over 12 months, there was no evidence of a difference in the SPADI scores between the progressive exercise intervention and the best-practice advice intervention in shoulder pain and function (adjusted mean difference between groups over 12 months -0.66, 99% confidence interval -4.52 to 3.20). There was also no difference in SPADI scores between the progressive exercise intervention and best-practice advice intervention when analysed at the 8-week and 6- and 12-month time points. Injection resulted in improvement in shoulder pain and function at 8 weeks compared with no injection (adjusted mean difference -5.64, 99% confidence interval -9.93 to -1.35), but not when analysed over 12 months (adjusted mean difference -1.11, 99% confidence interval -4.47 to 2.26), or at 6 and 12 months. There were no serious adverse events. In the base-case analysis, adding injection to best-practice advice gained 0.021 quality-adjusted life-years (p = 0.184) and increased the cost by £10 per participant (p = 0.747). Progressive exercise alone was £52 (p = 0.247) more expensive per participant than best-practice advice, and gained 0.019 QALYs (p = 0.220). At a ceiling ratio of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, injection plus best-practice advice had a 54.93% probability of being the most cost-effective treatment.

LIMITATIONS

Participants and physiotherapists were not blinded to group allocation. Twelve-month follow-up may be insufficient for identifying all safety concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Progressive exercise was not superior to a best-practice advice session with a physiotherapist. Subacromial corticosteroid injection improved shoulder pain and function, but provided only modest short-term benefit. Best-practice advice in combination with corticosteroid injection was expected to be most cost-effective, although there was substantial uncertainty.

FUTURE WORK

Longer-term follow-up, including any serious adverse effects of corticosteroid injection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16539266 and EudraCT 2016-002991-28.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The effects of a single-dose subacromial injection of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug in geriatric patients with subacromial impingement syndrome: a randomized double-blind study

Background

As nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and steroids have similar effects, steroids can be avoided to reduce adverse effects. This study aimed to compare the differences in symptom improvement after subacromial injection of steroids or NSAIDs.

Methods

Sixty patients with rotator cuff syndrome for at least 3 months were enrolled and divided into steroid and NSAID groups. The steroid group received a mixture of 1 mL of triamcinolone acetonide (40 mg/mL) and 1 mL of lidocaine hydrochloride 2%, while the NSAID group received a mixture of 1 mL of Ketorolac Tromethamine (30 mg/mL) and 1 mL of lidocaine hydrochloride 2%. The patients were assessed before and at 3, 6, and 12 weeks after the procedure. Shoulder scores from visual analog scale (VAS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) were used for evaluation.

Results

Both groups showed improvements in the clinical outcomes. Overall VAS, ASES, and UCLA scores improved from 6.9, 32.7, and 16.0 before the procedure to 2.0, 1.2, and 1.1; 81.5, 87.6, and 88.5; and 29.7, 31.8, and 32.0 at weeks 3, 6, and 12 weeks after the procedure, respectively. Twenty-six patients (86.7%) in the steroid group and 28 (93.3%) in the NSAID group reported satisfactory treatment outcomes. There were no significant differences in the outcomes between the two groups (p=0.671).

Conclusions

Subacromial injection of NSAIDs for rotator cuff tendinitis with shoulder pain had equivalent outcomes with those of steroid injection at the 12-week follow-up.

Addition of corticosteroids to local anaesthetics for chronic non-cancer pain injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Despite common use, the benefit of adding steroids to local anaesthetics (SLA) for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) injections is uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of English-language RCTs to assess the benefit and safety of adding steroids to local anaesthetics (LA) for CNCP.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception to May 2019. Trial selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Outcomes were guided by the Initiative in Methods, Measurements, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) statement with pain improvement as the primary outcome and pooled using random effects model and reported as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Among 5097 abstracts, 73 trials were eligible. Although SLA increased the rate of success (42 trials, 3592 patients; RR=1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.25; number needed to treat [NNT], 13), the effect size decreased by nearly 50% (NNT, 22) with the removal of two intrathecal injection studies. The differences in pain scores with SLA were not clinically meaningful (54 trials, 4416 patients, MD=0.44 units; 95% CI, 0.24-0.65). No differences were observed in other outcomes or adverse events. No subgroup effects were detected based on clinical categories. Meta-regression showed no significant association with steroid dose or length of follow-up and pain relief.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of cortico steroids to local anaesthetic has only small benefits and a potential for harm. Injection of local anaesthetic alone could be therapeutic, beyond being diagnostic. A shared decision based on patient preferences should be considered. If used, one must avoid high doses and series of steroid injections.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO #: CRD42015020614.

Corticosteroid injections in the management of subacromial pain: Experiences and decision making of physiotherapists

BACKGROUND

Despite ongoing debate in the literature regarding their efficacy, corticosteroid injections remain a common treatment intervention for physiotherapists to consider for patients with subacromial pain. Very little is known about what factors and how clinician's experiences inform decision making in this area.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the experiences and decision making of physiotherapists in relation to the use of corticosteroid injections for subacromial pain.

DESIGN

A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews, which were then analysed using thematic analysis.

SETTING

A social enterprise organisation delivering NHS primary care musculo-skeletal physiotherapy services.

PARTICIPANTS

Nine physiotherapists.

RESULTS

Three broad codes were identified: (1) initial management; (2) patient factors; (3) therapist beliefs. Within these three codes, seven sub-themes were identified. Confidence in diagnosis and satisfaction that conservative management had been attempted was important. Features of a patient's presentation were key to decision making, i.e. pain severity, function and effect on sleep. Patient engagement with rehabilitation was also considered important, as was consideration of the effect of psychosocial factors. Therapist beliefs and experiences around the efficacy of corticosteroid injections was also considered influential on decision making. Some dissuasive factors were also discussed.

CONCLUSION

Some of the key factors in the decision making of physiotherapists in relation to the use of corticosteroid injections for subacromial pain have been identified, such as patient presentation and engagement, clinician experience and consideration of current literature. Further research is indicated to explore this subject further to enable better understanding around clinical decision making and the use of corticosteroid injections.

Screening of the cervical spine in subacromial shoulder pain: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Subacromial shoulder pain is a common clinical presentation with much diagnostic uncertainty. Some of this uncertainty relates to the involvement of the cervical spine as a source or contribution to subacromial shoulder pain. Currently, there is no accepted method of screening of the cervical spine in the presence of subacromial shoulder pain, which risks patients receiving misguided and/or ineffective interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate approaches used to screen the cervical spine in patients with subacromial shoulder pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

Electronic searches of PEDro and MEDLINE to December 2016 were conducted. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of interventions within the current scope of physiotherapy comprising of adult patients complaining of subacromial shoulder pain were included. Data relating to the method of cervical spine screening were extracted and synthesized categorically.

RESULTS

One hundred and two studies were included. Twenty-six (25.5%) were categorized as "No method of screening undertaken or reported," 49 (48.0%) were categorized as "Localized cervical spine symptoms and/or radiculopathy/radicular pain," nine (8.8%) were categorized as "Cervical examination," two (2.0%) were categorized as "Manual testing," two (2.0%) were categorized as "History of cervical surgery," and 14 (13.7%) were categorized as using "Combined approaches."

CONCLUSION

Examination of the cervical spine in patients with subacromial shoulder pain is variable in randomized controlled trials. In many instances, no or minimal attempts to screen were undertaken or reported. This has potential research and management implications and further research is indicated to facilitate development of this aspect of examination.

Predictors of the effects of treatment for shoulder pain: protocol of an individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Shoulder pain is one of the most common presentations of musculoskeletal pain with a 1-month population prevalence of between 7 and 26%. The overall prognosis of shoulder pain is highly variable with 40% of patients reporting persistent pain 1 year after consulting their primary care clinician. Despite evidence for prognostic value of a range of patient and disease characteristics, it is not clear whether these factors also predict (moderate) the effect of specific treatments (such as corticosteroid injection, exercise, or surgery).

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to identify predictors of treatment effect (i.e. treatment moderators or effect modifiers) by investigating the association between a number of pre-defined individual-level factors and the effects of commonly used treatments on shoulder pain and disability outcomes.

METHODS

This will be a meta-analysis using individual participant data (IPD). Eligible trials investigating the effectiveness of advice and analgesics, corticosteroid injection, physiotherapy-led exercise, psychological interventions, and/or surgical treatment in patients with shoulder conditions will be identified from systematic reviews and an updated systematic search for trials, and risk of bias will be assessed. Authors of all eligible trials will be approached for data sharing. Outcomes measured will be shoulder pain and disability, and our previous work has identified candidate predictors. The main analysis will be conducted using hierarchical one-stage IPD meta-analysis models, examining the effect of treatment-predictor interaction on outcome for each of the candidate predictors and describing relevant subgroup effects where significant interaction effects are detected. Random effects will be used to account for clustering and heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses will be based on (i) exclusion of trials at high risk of bias, (ii) use of restricted cubic splines to model potential non-linear associations for candidate predictors measured on a continuous scale, and (iii) the use of a two-stage IPD meta-analysis framework.

DISCUSSION

Our study will collate, appraise, and synthesise IPD from multiple studies to examine potential predictors of treatment effect in order to assess the potential for better and more efficient targeting of specific treatments for individuals with shoulder pain.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018088298.

Are corticosteroid injections more beneficial than anaesthetic injections alone in the management of rotator cuff-related shoulder pain? A systematic review

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of corticosteroid injections to local anaesthetic injections in the management of rotator cuff-related shoulder pain (RCRSP).

Design

Systematic review with best evidence synthesis.

Data sources

The Cochrane, PubMed, CINAHL Plus, PEDro and EMBASE electronic databases were searched (inception until 8 June 2017). Reference lists of included articles were also hand searched.

Eligibility criteria

Two reviewers independently evaluated eligibility. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they compared subacromial injections of corticosteroid with anaesthetic injections. Two reviewers independently extracted data regarding short-term, midterm and long-term outcomes for pain, self-reported function, range of motion and patient-perceived improvement.

Results

Thirteen RCTs (n=1013) were included. Four trials (n=475) were judged as being at low risk of bias. Three studies of low risk of bias favoured the use of corticosteroid over anaesthetic-only injections in the short term (up to 8 weeks). There was strong evidence of no significant difference between injection types in midterm outcomes (12–26 weeks). There was limited evidence of no significant difference between injection types in long-term outcomes.

Conclusion

Corticosteroid injections may have a short-term benefit (up to 8 weeks) over local anaesthetic injections alone in the management of RCRSP. Beyond 8 weeks, there was no evidence to suggest a benefit of corticosteroid over local anaesthetic injections.

Trial registration number

PROSPERO CRD42016033161.

Corticosteroid Injections Give Small and Transient Pain Relief in Rotator Cuff Tendinosis: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The ability of injection of corticosteroids into the subacromial space to relieve pain ascribed to rotator cuff tendinosis is debated. The number of patients who have an injection before one gets relief beyond what a placebo provides is uncertain.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We asked: (1) Do corticosteroid injections reduce pain in patients with rotator cuff tendinosis 3 months after injection, and if so, what is the number needed to treat (NNT)? (2) Are multiple injections better than one single injection with respect to pain reduction at 3 months?

METHODS

We systematically searched seven electronic databases for randomized controlled trials of corticosteroid injection for rotator cuff tendinosis compared with a placebo injection. Eligible studies had at least 10 adults and used pain intensity as an outcome measure. The Hedges's g as adjusted pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) (which expresses the size of the intervention effect in each study relative to the total variability observed among pooled studies) and NNT were calculated at assessment points less than 1 month, 1-2 months, and 2-3 months. The protocol of this study was registered at the international prospective register of systematic reviews. Eleven studies of 726 patients satisfied our criteria for data pooling. Three studies containing 292 patients used repeat injections. A random effects model was used owing to substantial heterogeneity among studies. The funnel plot indicated the possibility of some missing studies, but Orwin's fail-safe N and Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill suggested that missing studies would not significantly affect the results.

RESULTS

Corticosteroid injection did not reduce pain intensity in adult patients with rotator cuff tendinosis more than a placebo injection at the 3-month assessment. A small transient pain relief occurred at the assessment between 4 and 8 weeks with a SMD of 0.52 (range, 0.27-0.78) (p < 0.001). At least five patients must be treated for one patient's pain to be transiently reduced to no more than mild. Multiple injections were not found to be more effective than a single injection at any time.

CONCLUSIONS

Corticosteroid injections provide-at best-minimal transient pain relief in a small number of patients with rotator cuff tendinosis and cannot modify the natural course of the disease. Given the discomfort, cost, and potential to accelerate tendon degeneration associated with corticosteroids, they have limited appeal. Their wide use may be attributable to habit, underappreciation of the placebo effect, incentive to satisfy rather than discuss a patient's drive toward physical intervention, or for remuneration, rather than their utility.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Clinical benefits and drawbacks of local corticosteroids injections in tendinopathies

INTRODUCTION

local glucocorticoids injections are widely administered for the treatment of tendinopathies. positive results have been observed in some tendinopathies but not in others. moreover, worsening of symptoms, and even spontaneous tendon ruptures has been reported. the characteristics of the tendinopathies, the clinical peculiarities of the patient, and the technique used to administer glucocorticoids, can influence the therapeutic response. Areas covered: After reviewing the pertinent literature on the clinical results, basic information, both on the pathogenesis of tendinopathies and the effects of glucocorticoids on tendons, is reported. The pharmacological properties of glucocorticoids are useful to counteract some pathogenetic mechanisms of tendinopathies. However, several experimental studies suggest that the direct action of glucocorticoids on tendons is detrimental. Loss of collagen organization, impaired viability of fibroblasts, depletion of stem cells pool, and reduced mechanical properties have been observed. Expert opinion: Drawbacks of local glucocorticoids injections could be predicted on an individual basis, after a careful appraisal of patient characteristics and concomitant medications, along with the specific stage of tendon disease.

Defining Feasibility and Pilot Studies in Preparation for Randomised Controlled Trials: Development of a Conceptual Framework

We describe a framework for defining pilot and feasibility studies focusing on studies conducted in preparation for a randomised controlled trial. To develop the framework, we undertook a Delphi survey; ran an open meeting at a trial methodology conference; conducted a review of definitions outside the health research context; consulted experts at an international consensus meeting; and reviewed 27 empirical pilot or feasibility studies. We initially adopted mutually exclusive definitions of pilot and feasibility studies. However, some Delphi survey respondents and the majority of open meeting attendees disagreed with the idea of mutually exclusive definitions. Their viewpoint was supported by definitions outside the health research context, the use of the terms 'pilot' and 'feasibility' in the literature, and participants at the international consensus meeting. In our framework, pilot studies are a subset of feasibility studies, rather than the two being mutually exclusive. A feasibility study asks whether something can be done, should we proceed with it, and if so, how. A pilot study asks the same questions but also has a specific design feature: in a pilot study a future study, or part of a future study, is conducted on a smaller scale. We suggest that to facilitate their identification, these studies should be clearly identified using the terms 'feasibility' or 'pilot' as appropriate. This should include feasibility studies that are largely qualitative; we found these difficult to identify in electronic searches because researchers rarely used the term 'feasibility' in the title or abstract of such studies. Investigators should also report appropriate objectives and methods related to feasibility; and give clear confirmation that their study is in preparation for a future randomised controlled trial designed to assess the effect of an intervention.

I.S.Mu.L.T - Rotator Cuff Tears Guidelines

Despite the high level achieved in the field of shoulder surgery, a global consensus on rotator cuff tears management is lacking. This work is divided into two main sessions: in the first, we set questions about hot topics involved in the rotator cuff tears, from the etiopathogenesis to the surgical treatment. In the second, we answered these questions by mentioning Evidence Based Medicine. The aim of the present work is to provide easily accessible guidelines: they could be considered as recommendations for a good clinical practice developed through a process of systematic review of the literature and expert opinion, in order to improve the quality of care and rationalize the use of resources.

Comparison of efficacy of kinesiological taping and subacromial injection therapy in subacromial impingement syndrome

The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of kinesiological taping and subacromial injection therapy in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome (SIS). Seventy patients diagnosed with SIS were randomly assigned to group 1 (n = 35, injection group) or group 2 (n = 35, kinesiological taping group). Betamethasone plus prilocaine was injected to subacromial space in the patients in group 1. In group 2, tape was applied three times for a period of five consecutive days with a 2-day recovery interval. A 3-month exercise program was prescribed for both groups including stretching and strengthening exercises. All patients were assessed at baseline and at 1 and 3 months post-intervention. Assessments were made by visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, range of motion (ROM) measurements, specific tests, and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI). Significant differences were detected in VAS and SPADI scores as well as ROM measurements in both groups when compared to baseline (p > 0.05). No significant differences were detected between the groups except for active flexion degree in favor of group 1 (p = 0.004). Both kinesiological taping and steroid injection in conjunction with an exercise program were found to be effective in the treatment of SIS. Kinesio taping may be an alternative treatment option in the rehabilitation of SIS especially when a non-invasive technique is needed.