Literature DB >> 23633343

Physical tests for shoulder impingements and local lesions of bursa, tendon or labrum that may accompany impingement.

Nigel C A Hanchard1, Mário Lenza, Helen H G Handoll, Yemisi Takwoingi.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Impingement is a common cause of shoulder pain. Impingement mechanisms may occur subacromially (under the coraco-acromial arch) or internally (within the shoulder joint), and a number of secondary pathologies may be associated. These include subacromial-subdeltoid bursitis (inflammation of the subacromial portion of the bursa, the subdeltoid portion, or both), tendinopathy or tears affecting the rotator cuff or the long head of biceps tendon, and glenoid labral damage. Accurate diagnosis based on physical tests would facilitate early optimisation of the clinical management approach. Most people with shoulder pain are diagnosed and managed in the primary care setting.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of physical tests for shoulder impingements (subacromial or internal) or local lesions of bursa, rotator cuff or labrum that may accompany impingement, in people whose symptoms and/or history suggest any of these disorders. SEARCH
METHODS: We searched electronic databases for primary studies in two stages. In the first stage, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and DARE (all from inception to November 2005). In the second stage, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and AMED (2005 to 15 February 2010). Searches were delimited to articles written in English. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered for inclusion diagnostic test accuracy studies that directly compared the accuracy of one or more physical index tests for shoulder impingement against a reference test in any clinical setting. We considered diagnostic test accuracy studies with cross-sectional or cohort designs (retrospective or prospective), case-control studies and randomised controlled trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two pairs of review authors independently performed study selection, assessed the study quality using QUADAS, and extracted data onto a purpose-designed form, noting patient characteristics (including care setting), study design, index tests and reference standard, and the diagnostic 2 x 2 table. We presented information on sensitivities and specificities with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for the index tests. Meta-analysis was not performed. MAIN
RESULTS: We included 33 studies involving 4002 shoulders in 3852 patients. Although 28 studies were prospective, study quality was still generally poor. Mainly reflecting the use of surgery as a reference test in most studies, all but two studies were judged as not meeting the criteria for having a representative spectrum of patients. However, even these two studies only partly recruited from primary care.The target conditions assessed in the 33 studies were grouped under five main categories: subacromial or internal impingement, rotator cuff tendinopathy or tears, long head of biceps tendinopathy or tears, glenoid labral lesions and multiple undifferentiated target conditions. The majority of studies used arthroscopic surgery as the reference standard. Eight studies utilised reference standards which were potentially applicable to primary care (local anaesthesia, one study; ultrasound, three studies) or the hospital outpatient setting (magnetic resonance imaging, four studies). One study used a variety of reference standards, some applicable to primary care or the hospital outpatient setting. In two of these studies the reference standard used was acceptable for identifying the target condition, but in six it was only partially so. The studies evaluated numerous standard, modified, or combination index tests and 14 novel index tests. There were 170 target condition/index test combinations, but only six instances of any index test being performed and interpreted similarly in two studies. Only two studies of a modified empty can test for full thickness tear of the rotator cuff, and two studies of a modified anterior slide test for type II superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesions, were clinically homogenous. Due to the limited number of studies, meta-analyses were considered inappropriate. Sensitivity and specificity estimates from each study are presented on forest plots for the 170 target condition/index test combinations grouped according to target condition. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence upon which to base selection of physical tests for shoulder impingements, and local lesions of bursa, tendon or labrum that may accompany impingement, in primary care. The large body of literature revealed extreme diversity in the performance and interpretation of tests, which hinders synthesis of the evidence and/or clinical applicability.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23633343      PMCID: PMC6464770          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007427.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  236 in total

Review 1.  Examination of the shoulder in the overhead and throwing athlete.

Authors:  Edward G McFarland; Miho J Tanaka; Derek F Papp
Journal:  Clin Sports Med       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.182

2.  Accuracy of physical examination in subacromial impingement syndrome.

Authors:  L Silva; J L Andréu; P Muñoz; M Pastrana; I Millán; J Sanz; C Barbadillo; M Fernández-Castro
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2008-03-27       Impact factor: 7.580

3.  Comments on review by Beaudreuil et al. "Contribution of clinical tests to the diagnosis of rotator cuff disease: a systematic review".

Authors:  Lucía Silva; José Luis Andreu
Journal:  Joint Bone Spine       Date:  2009-10-01       Impact factor: 4.929

Review 4.  Subacromial impingement syndrome.

Authors:  L U Bigliani; W N Levine
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  An analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of the Hawkins and Neer subacromial impingement signs.

Authors:  P B MacDonald; P Clark; K Sutherland
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2000 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.019

6.  Returning to the bedside: using the history and physical examination to identify rotator cuff tears.

Authors:  D Litaker; M Pioro; H El Bilbeisi; J Brems
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 5.562

7.  Biceps load test II: A clinical test for SLAP lesions of the shoulder.

Authors:  S H Kim; K I Ha; J H Ahn; S H Kim; H J Choi
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 4.772

8.  Shoulder pathoanatomy in marathon kayakers.

Authors:  G Hagemann; A M Rijke; M Mars
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 13.800

9.  Intraarticular findings in the chronically painful shoulder. A study of 32 posttraumatic cases.

Authors:  P A Suder; K Hougaard; L H Frich; O S Rasmussen; E Lundorf
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1994-06

10.  Ultrasonographic findings of the shoulder in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and comparison with physical examination.

Authors:  Hyun Ah Kim; Su Ho Kim; Young Il Seo
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.153

View more
  44 in total

Review 1.  Physical examination tests and imaging studies based on arthroscopic assessment of the long head of biceps tendon are invalid.

Authors:  Robert W Jordan; Adnan Saithna
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-11-26       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Assessment of Correlation Between MRI and Arthroscopic Pathologic Findings in the Shoulder Joint.

Authors:  Omid R Momenzadeh; Mohamad H Gerami; Sepideh Sefidbakht; Sakineh Dehghani
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2015-10

3.  Ultrasound imaging for tailored treatment of patients with acute shoulder pain.

Authors:  Ramon P G Ottenheijm; Jochen W L Cals; René Weijers; Kurt Vanderdood; Rob A de Bie; Geert-Jan Dinant
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2015 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.166

Review 4.  [Clinical or radiological diagnosis of impingement].

Authors:  J K Kloth; F Zeifang; M-A Weber
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 5.  Recognising and dealing with complications in orthopaedic surgery.

Authors:  D Ricketts; R A Rogers; T Roper; X Ge
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 1.891

6.  The painful shoulder: an update on assessment, treatment, and referral.

Authors:  Majid Artus; Tim A Holt; Jonathan Rees
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  CHANGING OUR DIAGNOSTIC PARADIGM: MOVEMENT SYSTEM DIAGNOSTIC CLASSIFICATION.

Authors:  Paula M Ludewig; Danilo H Kamonseki; Justin L Staker; Rebekah L Lawrence; Paula R Camargo; Jonathan P Braman
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2017-11

8.  MRA for SLAP - Is the threshold for referral too low?

Authors:  Gilad Rotem; Sagie Haziza; Shay Tenenbaum; Ran Thein
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2019-11-07

Review 9.  A practical, evidence-based, comprehensive (PEC) physical examination for diagnosing pathology of the long head of the biceps.

Authors:  Samuel Rosas; Michael K Krill; Kelms Amoo-Achampong; KiHyun Kwon; Benedict U Nwachukwu; Frank McCormick
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2017-05-04       Impact factor: 3.019

Review 10.  A concise evidence-based physical examination for diagnosis of acromioclavicular joint pathology: a systematic review.

Authors:  Michael K Krill; Samuel Rosas; KiHyun Kwon; Andrew Dakkak; Benedict U Nwachukwu; Frank McCormick
Journal:  Phys Sportsmed       Date:  2017-12-13       Impact factor: 2.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.