Fernández-Matías Rubén, Lluch-Girbés Enrique, Bateman Marcus, Requejo-Salinas Néstor
Doctoral School, Department of Physical Therapy, Universitat de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Department of Physical Therapy, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Phys Ther Sport. 2024 Mar;66:76-84. doi: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2024.01.010. Epub 2024 Feb 8.
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.
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.
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.
The FEDS classification system has not been embraced enough by the physical therapy scientific community since its publication in 2011.
本研究旨在回顾自2011年发表以来,物理治疗学界对肩部不稳定的频率、病因、方向和严重程度(FEDS)分类的应用情况。
2024年1月10日,在MEDLINE、EMBASE、SPORTDiscus、Scopus、科学网、Cochrane和SciELO数据库以及谷歌学术上进行了系统检索。纳入研究肩部不稳定患者物理治疗干预措施且报告肩部不稳定选择标准的研究。进行了叙述性综合分析。
纳入26项研究。没有研究报告将FEDS分类作为肩部不稳定的纳入标准。只有42%的研究提供了FEDS分类所有四项标准的数据。报告最多的标准是方向(92%),其次是病因(85%)、严重程度(65%)和频率(58%)。描述肩部不稳定最常见的术语是“脱位”(83.3%),其次是“首次”(66.7%)、“前向”(62.5%)和“创伤性”(59.1%)。关于其他不稳定分类,只有一项研究(4%)使用了托马斯和马特森分类,两项研究(8%)使用了斯坦莫尔分类。
自2011年发表以来,FEDS分类系统在物理治疗学界的应用还不够广泛。