Interferential Current in Proximal Humerus FracturesNCT04553497
IFC Therapy in Proximal Humerus Fractures
A study testing Interferential current and Rehabilitation program in people with Interferential Current in Proximal Humerus Fractures, run by Ege University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) frequently occur in the elderly and osteoporotic population, but these fractures are also common in individuals under age 60 years. Conservative treatment of PHF usually involves a short period of immobilization followed by orthopedic rehabilitation. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 40 to 80 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Interferential Current in Proximal Humerus Fractures
- What is being tested?
- Interferential current and Rehabilitation program
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 35 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 1 Apr 2014to 15 Oct 2015
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 40 to 80 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
None listed.
Who cannot join
- Any surgery history for shoulder pathologies
- Previous electrotherapy experience before the fracture (to ensure blinding of therapy)
- Any contraindication such as pacemaker, malignancy, pregnancy, etc. for IFC
- Rheumatic disease such as rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis
- Shoulder subluxation; having other fractures in addition to the PHF
- Known or suspected joint infection or a specific condition such as peripheral or central nervous system lesions
- Neoplasm; diabetes mellitus or osteonecrosis
- Any mental disorder that may make it difficult to adapt to exercise
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Turkey (Türkiye)1 site
Ege University, School of Medicine, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Outpatient Clinic
Izmir, 35040
About this study
Official title: Does Interferential Current Provide Additional Benefit to the Rehabilitation Program for the Patients With Proximal Humeral Fractures? A Randomized Controlled Study
Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) frequently occur in the elderly and osteoporotic population, but these fractures are also common in individuals under age 60 years. Conservative treatment of PHF usually involves a short period of immobilization followed by orthopedic rehabilitation. However, the severe pain of some patients with fractures limits their participation in the exercise programme, and shoulder muscle atrophy and frozen shoulder may occur in these patients due to immobilization. There are conflicting results regarding the use of physical therapy modalities in the shoulder pain management. Interferential current (IFC) therapy is believed to be effective for the pain-relieving through several mechanisms. Although IFC has been investigated in many painful shoulder disorders, there is no reported study on the effectiveness of IFC therapy in patients with PHF. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of IFC added to exercise on shoulder function, pain, and disability compared with placebo in patients with conservative treated PHF.
Patients were evaluated within the first week of PHF and divided into two groups to receive either IFC or sham using a simple randomization method. The orthopedic rehabilitation programme was applied to all patients three times a week for four weeks under the guidance of the same physiotherapist. IFC or sham therapy was applied three times a week for 20 minutes before each exercise session by another physiotherapist.
Shoulder functions, pain (visual analogue scale), disability and range of motion was evaluated at the end of the rehabilitation program, at 6-weeks and 18-weeks post-treatment by the physiatrist (ED) who did not know which group the patients belonged to. In addition, the amount of acetaminophen usage was noted at each visit.
Read the detailed description
Patients with conservatively treated proximal humerus fracture who admitted to Ege University Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation outpatient clinic have been included in the study. All patients who met inclusion criteria were enrolled into the study at the first week of PHF. The orthopedic rehabilitation programme was applied to all patients three times a week for four weeks under the guidance of the same physiotherapist. The patients also received a complete set of premade exercise cards, which showed all exercises to ensure that the training program was learned correctly. The patients were recruited at the first week after proximal humerus fracture and then allocated into the groups. The patients were separated into two groups as interferential current or sham using a simple randomization method managed by an impartial observer. Flipping a coin was used for simple randomization (heads - sham, tails - treatment). The patient's group was reported to the physiotherapist who would apply interferential current in a closed envelope. Patients and the outcome assessor were blind to the treatment groups. The IFC therapy was applied using a combined electrotherapy device SONOPULS 692® (brand: Enraf-Nonius). The medium frequency of the IFC was 4000 Hz and 4100 Hz to produce the amplitude-modulated frequency at 100 Hz. Two rubber electrodes (8×6 cm) were fitted on the fractured shoulder. One of the electrodes was placed on the lateral part of the deltoid muscle; the other one was placed on the trapezius muscle near the shoulder. The current intensity was set to achieve a "strong but comfortable tingling" without visible muscle contraction. The sham therapy consisted of placing the same pads for the same time, but no electrical stimulation was applied to the probes. The primary outcome was shoulder global function which was measured by the Constant-Murley score (CMS). The questionnaire assesses four shoulder functions: 1) pain; 2) activities of daily living (sleeping, work, leisure); 3) range of motion; and 4) muscle strength. The total score ranges from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating better shoulder function. Activity pain was measured with the visual analog scale (VAS). In addition, in order to evaluate shoulder function and disability, the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) was used. This self-administered questionnaire includes 30 questions evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale, most of which relate to the individual's capacity to realize a task. The patients were allowed to use paracetamol during the study and the paracetamol intake was recorded as gr/week.
Clinical assessments were evaluated at the end of the treatment, at 6-weeks and 18-weeks post-treatment. Only VAS resting pain was evaluated at the enrollment because the fractured side was immobile when the patients were included in the study. The physician who assessed the treatment outcomes, the patients and the physiotherapist who administer the exercises were unaware of the patient's group of treatment.
A clinically meaningful difference was considered to be a change of 15 points in total CMS. In order to detect this improvement, the number of patients needed was 17 per group according to a power of 0.80, a high size effect (d=0.88), a p value of 0.05, and a 15% dropout rate.
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 20.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). An intention-to-treat analysis was employed for all analysis. The variables were investigated using visual (histogram, probability plots) and analytic methods (Kolmogorov-Smirnov, skewness and curtosis) to determine whether they were normally distributed or not. . Continuous data were described as median (inter-quartile range, IQR) or mean (standar deviation, SD) and categorical variables as percentages. Chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used to compare categorical variables and Mann-Whitney U test/Student's T-test was used to compare continuous variables. All outcome values were presented in mean and standard deviation. The repeated measures ANOVA test was used in comparison of the means of the repeated measures. The results of the repeated measures ANOVA were analyzed by Mauchly's sphericity test. If the parametric tests (factorial design for repeated measures analysis) did not provide the preconditions, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used for corrections to the degrees of freedom or Friedman's Test. The Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered to show a statistically significant result.
- Being tested
- Interferential current, Rehabilitation program
- Keywords
- Proximal humerus fracture, interferential current, Constant-Murley score
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Interferential currentDevice
Interferential current or sham were applied to the patients before the each exercise session. Pre-modulated bipolar method with the currier frequency of 4 kHz by a combination therapy unit (Sonopuls 692, Enraf-Nonius) with two electrodes (8×6 cm) was used. One electrode was placed on the lateral part of the deltoid muscle; the other was placed on the trapezium muscle close to the shoulder. Subjects were told that in order to produce an effect, the intensity of the stimulator must be maintained at a "strong but comfortable level" at all times. The sham interferential current therapy consisted of the placement of the same pads for the same time but no electrical stimulation was applied to the probes.
Rehabilitation programOther
The orthopedic rehabilitation programme was applied to all patients three times a week for 4 weeks under the guidance of the same physiotherapist. The first phase (0-3 weeks) involved the elbow, wrist, and hand active range of motion (ROM) and pendulum (clockwise and counterclockwise) exercises in the 0-2 weeks of the non-displaced fracture. For displaced fractures, elbow, wrist, and hand active range of motion was started immediately, but pendulum exercises were initiated two weeks later. The patients were instructed to continue exercises 3-5 times per day for 30 minutes. After two weeks, active assistive ROM and isometric exercises were performed supine position. During the second phase (3-6 weeks), active forward elevation in supine was carried out and then progressed to sitting and standing position. At the end of the sixth week, a home exercise program was given by the physiotherapist, including resistance exercises using an elastic band (Thera-Band).
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Rehabilitation and interferential current therapy | Active comparator | Flipping a coin was used for simple randomization (tails - interferential current). In this arm, interferential current therapy was applied to the patients in addition to the rehabilitation program. Receives: Device: Interferential current; Other: Rehabilitation program |
| Rehabilitation and sham therapy | Sham comparator | Flipping a coin was used for simple randomization (heads - sham). In this arm, sham therapy was applied to the patients in addition to the rehabilitation program. Receives: Device: Interferential current; Other: Rehabilitation program |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Constant-Murley Score
The primary outcome was shoulder global function which was measured by the Constant-Murley score (CMS). The questionnaire assesses four shoulder functions: 1) pain; 2) activities of daily living (sleeping, work, leisure); 3) range of motion; and 4) muscle strength. The total score ranges from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating better shoulder function.
Measured: 1. At the end of the treatment 2. The second evaluation: Six weeks after the first one (6th week post-treatment) 3. The last evaluation: Three months after the second one (18th week post-treatment)
Secondary outcomes (2)
Visual Analogue Scale
The secondary outcome was pain which was measured by the visual analogue scale. The patients themselves used the VAS to make an assessment of their pain with 0 representing no pain, 10 cm representing severe pain.
Measured: Visual analogue scale was recorded at the end of the treatment, at 6-weeks and 18-weeks post-treatment
Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Score
One of the secondary outcome was disability which was measured by the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Score. The DASH consists mainly of a 30-item disability/symptom on a 5-point Likert scale, scored 0 (no disability) to 100 (maximum disability).
Measured: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Score was recorded at the end of the treatment, at 6-weeks and 18-weeks post-treatment
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted17 Sep 2020
- Study start1 Apr 2014
- Primary completion15 May 2015
- Study completion15 Oct 2015
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (4)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Interferential Current in Proximal Humerus FracturesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- After the patients were randomized, interferential current was applied for 3 times a week before the each exercise session by another physiotherapist. Pre-modulated bipolar method with the currier frequency of 4 kHz by a combination therapy unit (Sonopuls 692, Enraf-Nonius) with two electrodes (8×6 cm) was used. One electrode was placed on the lateral part of the deltoid muscle; the other was placed on the trapezium muscle close to the shoulder. Subjects were told that in order to produce an effect, the intensity of the stimulator must be maintained at a "strong but comfortable level" at all times. The sham interferential current therapy consisted of the placement of the same pads for the same time but no electrical stimulation was applied to the probes.
- Masking
- Triple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 35 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Ege University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Emine Duran, Ege University
- Investigators
- Emine Duran, Principal investigator, Ege University, School of Medicine, Physical Medicine and RehabilitationBerrin Durmaz, Study director, Ege University, School of Medicine, Physical Medicine and RehabilitationFunda A Çalış, Study chair, Ege University, School of Medicine, Physical Medicine and RehabilitationMehmet R Kadı, Study chair, Ege University, School of Medicine, Physical Medicine and RehabilitationLevent Küçük, Study chair, Ege University, School of Medicine, Orthopaedic Surgery
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04553497
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 15-10.1/43
- Status last verified
- Nov 2023
- First submitted
- 8 Sep 2020
- Last updated
- 24 Nov 2023
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Hodgson SA, Mawson SJ, Stanley D. Rehabilitation after two-part fractures of the neck of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003 Apr;85(3):419-22. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.85b3.13458.
PubMed 12729121Hodgson S. Proximal humerus fracture rehabilitation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Jan;442:131-8.
PubMed 16394751Cheing GL, So EM, Chao CY. Effectiveness of electroacupuncture and interferential eloctrotherapy in the management of frozen shoulder. J Rehabil Med. 2008 Mar;40(3):166-70. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0142.
PubMed 18292916Handoll HH, Elliott J, Thillemann TM, Aluko P, Brorson S. Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Jun 21;6(6):CD000434. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000434.pub5.
PubMed 35727196
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 24 Nov 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Does Interferential Current Provide Additional Benefit to the Rehabilitation Program for the Patients With Proximal Humeral Fractures? A Randomized Controlled Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04553497
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 15-10.1/43
- Keywords
- Proximal humerus fracture, interferential current, Constant-Murley score
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 35 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Ege UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Apr 2014 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 15 May 2015 (actual)
- Study completion
- 15 Oct 2015 (actual)
- First posted
- 17 Sep 2020 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 7 Dec 2020
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) frequently occur in the elderly and osteoporotic population, but these fractures are also common in individuals under age 60 years. Conservative treatment of PHF usually involves a short period of immobilization followed by orthopedic rehabilitation. However, the severe pain of some patients with fractures limits their participation in the exercise programme, and shoulder muscle atrophy and frozen shoulder may occur in these patients due to immobilization. There are conflicting results regarding the use of physical therapy modalities in the shoulder pain management. Interferential current (IFC) therapy is believed to be effective for the pain-relieving through several mechanisms. Although IFC has been investigated in many painful shoulder disorders, there is no reported study on the effectiveness of IFC therapy in patients with PHF. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of IFC added to exercise on shoulder function, pain, and disability compared with placebo in patients with conservative treated PHF.
Patients were evaluated within the first week of PHF and divided into two groups to receive either IFC or sham using a simple randomization method. The orthopedic rehabilitation programme was applied to all patients three times a week for four weeks under the guidance of the same physiotherapist. IFC or sham therapy was applied three times a week for 20 minutes before each exercise session by another physiotherapist.
Shoulder functions, pain (visual analogue scale), disability and range of motion was evaluated at the end of the rehabilitation program, at 6-weeks and 18-weeks post-treatment by the physiatrist (ED) who did not know which group the patients belonged to. In addition, the amount of acetaminophen usage was noted at each visit.
Detailed description
Patients with conservatively treated proximal humerus fracture who admitted to Ege University Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation outpatient clinic have been included in the study. All patients who met inclusion criteria were enrolled into the study at the first week of PHF. The orthopedic rehabilitation programme was applied to all patients three times a week for four weeks under the guidance of the same physiotherapist. The patients also received a complete set of premade exercise cards, which showed all exercises to ensure that the training program was learned correctly. The patients were recruited at the first week after proximal humerus fracture and then allocated into the groups. The patients were separated into two groups as interferential current or sham using a simple randomization method managed by an impartial observer. Flipping a coin was used for simple randomization (heads - sham, tails - treatment). The patient's group was reported to the physiotherapist who would apply interferential current in a closed envelope. Patients and the outcome assessor were blind to the treatment groups. The IFC therapy was applied using a combined electrotherapy device SONOPULS 692® (brand: Enraf-Nonius). The medium frequency of the IFC was 4000 Hz and 4100 Hz to produce the amplitude-modulated frequency at 100 Hz. Two rubber electrodes (8×6 cm) were fitted on the fractured shoulder. One of the electrodes was placed on the lateral part of the deltoid muscle; the other one was placed on the trapezius muscle near the shoulder. The current intensity was set to achieve a "strong but comfortable tingling" without visible muscle contraction. The sham therapy consisted of placing the same pads for the same time, but no electrical stimulation was applied to the probes. The primary outcome was shoulder global function which was measured by the Constant-Murley score (CMS). The questionnaire assesses four shoulder functions: 1) pain; 2) activities of daily living (sleeping, work, leisure); 3) range of motion; and 4) muscle strength. The total score ranges from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating better shoulder function. Activity pain was measured with the visual analog scale (VAS). In addition, in order to evaluate shoulder function and disability, the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) was used. This self-administered questionnaire includes 30 questions evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale, most of which relate to the individual's capacity to realize a task. The patients were allowed to use paracetamol during the study and the paracetamol intake was recorded as gr/week.
Clinical assessments were evaluated at the end of the treatment, at 6-weeks and 18-weeks post-treatment. Only VAS resting pain was evaluated at the enrollment because the fractured side was immobile when the patients were included in the study. The physician who assessed the treatment outcomes, the patients and the physiotherapist who administer the exercises were unaware of the patient's group of treatment.
A clinically meaningful difference was considered to be a change of 15 points in total CMS. In order to detect this improvement, the number of patients needed was 17 per group according to a power of 0.80, a high size effect (d=0.88), a p value of 0.05, and a 15% dropout rate.
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 20.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). An intention-to-treat analysis was employed for all analysis. The variables were investigated using visual (histogram, probability plots) and analytic methods (Kolmogorov-Smirnov, skewness and curtosis) to determine whether they were normally distributed or not. . Continuous data were described as median (inter-quartile range, IQR) or mean (standar deviation, SD) and categorical variables as percentages. Chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used to compare categorical variables and Mann-Whitney U test/Student's T-test was used to compare continuous variables. All outcome values were presented in mean and standard deviation. The repeated measures ANOVA test was used in comparison of the means of the repeated measures. The results of the repeated measures ANOVA were analyzed by Mauchly's sphericity test. If the parametric tests (factorial design for repeated measures analysis) did not provide the preconditions, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used for corrections to the degrees of freedom or Friedman's Test. The Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered to show a statistically significant result.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind (participant, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- After the patients were randomized, interferential current was applied for 3 times a week before the each exercise session by another physiotherapist. Pre-modulated bipolar method with the currier frequency of 4 kHz by a combination therapy unit (Sonopuls 692, Enraf-Nonius) with two electrodes (8×6 cm) was used. One electrode was placed on the lateral part of the deltoid muscle; the other was placed on the trapezium muscle close to the shoulder. Subjects were told that in order to produce an effect, the intensity of the stimulator must be maintained at a "strong but comfortable level" at all times. The sham interferential current therapy consisted of the placement of the same pads for the same time but no electrical stimulation was applied to the probes.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Rehabilitation and interferential current therapy | Active comparator | Device: Interferential current, Other: Rehabilitation programFlipping a coin was used for simple randomization (tails - interferential current). In this arm, interferential current therapy was applied to the patients in addition to the rehabilitation program. |
| Rehabilitation and sham therapy | Sham comparator | Device: Interferential current, Other: Rehabilitation programFlipping a coin was used for simple randomization (heads - sham). In this arm, sham therapy was applied to the patients in addition to the rehabilitation program. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 40 to 80 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (0 listed)
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- Any surgery history for shoulder pathologies
- Previous electrotherapy experience before the fracture (to ensure blinding of therapy)
- Any contraindication such as pacemaker, malignancy, pregnancy, etc. for IFC
- Rheumatic disease such as rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis
- Shoulder subluxation; having other fractures in addition to the PHF
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Interferential currentInterferential current or sham were applied to the patients before the each exercise session. Pre-modulated bipolar method with the currier frequency of 4 kHz by a combination therapy unit (Sonopuls 692, Enraf-Nonius) with two electrodes (8×6 cm) was used. One electrode was placed on the lateral part of the deltoid muscle; the other was placed on the trapezium muscle close to the shoulder. Subjects were told that in order to produce an effect, the intensity of the stimulator must be maintained at a "strong but comfortable level" at all times. The sham interferential current therapy consisted of the placement of the same pads for the same time but no electrical stimulation was applied to the probes. | Device | Rehabilitation and interferential current therapy, Rehabilitation and sham therapy |
| Rehabilitation programThe orthopedic rehabilitation programme was applied to all patients three times a week for 4 weeks under the guidance of the same physiotherapist. The first phase (0-3 weeks) involved the elbow, wrist, and hand active range of motion (ROM) and pendulum (clockwise and counterclockwise) exercises in the 0-2 weeks of the non-displaced fracture. For displaced fractures, elbow, wrist, and hand active range of motion was started immediately, but pendulum exercises were initiated two weeks later. The patients were instructed to continue exercises 3-5 times per day for 30 minutes. After two weeks, active assistive ROM and isometric exercises were performed supine position. During the second phase (3-6 weeks), active forward elevation in supine was carried out and then progressed to sitting and standing position. At the end of the sixth week, a home exercise program was given by the physiotherapist, including resistance exercises using an elastic band (Thera-Band). | Other | Rehabilitation and interferential current therapy, Rehabilitation and sham therapy |
Primary outcome
Constant-Murley Score
Time frame: 1. At the end of the treatment 2. The second evaluation: Six weeks after the first one (6th week post-treatment) 3. The last evaluation: Three months after the second one (18th week post-treatment)
The primary outcome was shoulder global function which was measured by the Constant-Murley score (CMS). The questionnaire assesses four shoulder functions: 1) pain; 2) activities of daily living (sleeping, work, leisure); 3) range of motion; and 4) muscle strength. The total score ranges from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating better shoulder function.
2 secondary outcomes
Visual Analogue Scale
Time frame: Visual analogue scale was recorded at the end of the treatment, at 6-weeks and 18-weeks post-treatment
Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Score
Time frame: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Score was recorded at the end of the treatment, at 6-weeks and 18-weeks post-treatment
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 24 Nov 2023.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Results publication: PubMed 12729121Hodgson SA, Mawson SJ, Stanley D. Rehabilitation after two-part fractures of the neck of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003 Apr;85(3):419-22. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.85b3.13458.
- Results publication: PubMed 16394751Hodgson S. Proximal humerus fracture rehabilitation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Jan;442:131-8.
- Results publication: PubMed 18292916Cheing GL, So EM, Chao CY. Effectiveness of electroacupuncture and interferential eloctrotherapy in the management of frozen shoulder. J Rehabil Med. 2008 Mar;40(3):166-70. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0142.
- Results publication: PubMed 35727196Handoll HH, Elliott J, Thillemann TM, Aluko P, Brorson S. Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Jun 21;6(6):CD000434. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000434.pub5.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Emine Duran principal investigator
Ege University, School of Medicine, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Berrin Durmaz study director
Ege University, School of Medicine, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Funda A Çalış study chair
Ege University, School of Medicine, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Interferential current and Rehabilitation program in people with Interferential Current in Proximal Humerus Fractures, run by Ege University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 0 inclusion and 8 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 24 Nov 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 7 Dec 2020). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Constant-Murley Score (time frame: 1. At the end of the treatment 2. The second evaluation: Six weeks after the first one (6th week post-treatment) 3. The last evaluation: Three months after the second one (18th week post-treatment)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04553497, which also lists 4 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 24 Nov 2023.