Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 256

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Exercises versus arthroscopic decompression in patients with subacromial impingement: a randomised, controlled study in 90 cases with a one year follow up

Open access
Haahr, J P, Østergaard, S, Dalsgaard, J, Norup, K, Frost, P, Lausen, S, Holm, E A, Andersen, J H·2005·Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of graded physiotherapeutic training of the rotator cuff versus arthroscopic subacromial decompression in patients with subacromial impingement. METHODS: Randomised controlled trial with 12 months' follow up in a hospital setting. Ninety consecutive patients aged 18 to 55 years were enrolled. Symptom duration was between six months and three years. All fulfilled a set of diagnostic criteria for rotator cuff disease, including a positive impingement sign. Patients were randomised either to arthroscopic subacromial decompression, or to physiotherapy with exercises aiming at strengthening the stabilisers and decompressors of the shoulder. Outcome was shoulder function as measured by the Constant score and a pain and dysfunction score. "Intention to treat" analysis was used, with comparison of means and control of confounding variables by general equation estimation analysis. RESULTS: Of 90 patients enrolled, 84 completed follow up (41 in the surgery group, 43 in the training group). The mean Constant score at baseline was 34.8 in the training group and 33.7 in the surgery group. After 12 months the mean scores improved to 57.0 and 52.7, respectively, the difference being non-significant. No group differences in mean pain and dysfunction score improvement were found. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment of rotator cuff syndrome with subacromial impingement was not superior to physiotherapy with training. Further studies are needed to qualify treatment choice decisions, and it is recommended that samples are stratified according to disability level.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/ard.2004.021188

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 13 references

Cited by

See all 256

Metadata

Authors
Haahr, J. P., Østergaard, S., Dalsgaard, J., Norup, K., Frost, P., Lausen, S., Holm, E. A., & Andersen, J. H.
Venue
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-05
Volume
64
Issue
5
Pages
760-764
ISSN
0003-4967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2142162811
Cited by
256
References
13
FWCI
9.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Exercises versus arthroscopic decompression in patients with subacromial impingement: a randomised, controlled study in 90 cases with a one year follow up. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/ard.2004.021188
The paper
Haahr, J. P., Østergaard, S., Dalsgaard, J., Norup, K., Frost, P., Lausen, S., Holm, E. A., & Andersen, J. H. (2005). Exercises versus arthroscopic decompression in patients with subacromial impingement: a randomised, controlled study in 90 cases with a one year follow up. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2004.021188

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.