Evidence Hub

One-year effectiveness of high-load compared with low-load strengthening exercise on self-reported function in patients with hypermobile shoulders: a secondary analysis from a randomised controlled trial

Behnam Liaghat, B. Juul-Kristensen, D. Faber, Emil O Christensen, K. Søgaard, S. Skou, J. Søndergaard, C. Juhl

British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2024

100 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

Objectives To investigate the long-term effectiveness of high-load versus low-load strengthening exercise on self-reported function in patients with hypermobility spectrum disorder (HSD) and shoulder symptoms. Methods A secondary analysis of a superiority, parallel-group, randomised trial (balanced block randomisation 1:1, electronic concealment) including adult patients (n=100) from primary care with HSD and shoulder pain and/or instability ≥3 months. Patients received 16 weeks of shoulder exercises (three sessions/week): HEAVY (n=50, full-range, high-load, supervised twice/week) or LIGHT (n=50, neutral/mid-range, low-load, supervised three times in total). The 1-year between-group difference in change in self-reported function was measured using the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI, scale 0–2100, 0=best). Secondary outcomes were self-reported measures including changes in shoulder-related symptoms, function, emotions and lifestyle, quality of life, patient-perceived effect, treatment utility and adverse events. A blinded analyst conducted the analyses using linear mixed model repeated measurements analysis. Results One-year data were available in 86 out of 100 participants (79% women, mean age 37.8 years) (LIGHT 84%, HEAVY 88%). The mean WOSI score between-group difference favoured HEAVY (−92.9, 95% CI −257.4 to 71.5, p=0.268) but was not statistically significant. The secondary outcomes were mostly inconclusive, but patients in HEAVY had larger improvement…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 100 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free