Literature DB >> 23982370

Does this patient with shoulder pain have rotator cuff disease?: The Rational Clinical Examination systematic review.

Job Hermans1, Jolanda J Luime, Duncan E Meuffels, Max Reijman, David L Simel, Sita M A Bierma-Zeinstra.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Rotator cuff disease (RCD) is the most common cause of shoulder pain seen by physicians.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis to identify the most accurate clinical examination findings for RCD. DATA SOURCES: Structured search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from their inception through May 2013. STUDY SELECTION: For inclusion, a study must have met the following criteria: (1) description of history taking, physical examination, or clinical tests concerning RCD; (2) detailing of sensitivity and specificity; (3) use of a reference standard with diagnostic criteria prespecified; (4) presentation of original data, or original data could be obtained from the authors; and (5) publication in a language mastered by one of the authors (Danish, Dutch, English, French, German, Norwegian, Spanish, Swedish). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Likelihood ratios (LRs) of symptoms and signs of RCD or of a tear, compared with an acceptable reference standard; quality scores assigned using the Rational Clinical Examination score and bias evaluated with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool.
RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies assessed the examination of referred patients by specialists. Only 5 studies reached Rational Clinical Examination quality scores of level 1-2. The studies with quality scores of level 1-2 included 30 to 203 shoulders with the prevalence of RCD ranging from 33% to 81%. Among pain provocation tests, a positive painful arc test result was the only finding with a positive LR greater than 2.0 for RCD (3.7 [95% CI, 1.9-7.0]), and a normal painful arc test result had the lowest negative LR (0.36 [95% CI, 0.23-0.54]). Among strength tests, a positive external rotation lag test (LR, 7.2 [95% CI, 1.7-31]) and internal rotation lag test (LR, 5.6 [95% CI, 2.6-12]) were the most accurate findings for full-thickness tears. A positive drop arm test result (LR, 3.3 [95% CI, 1.0-11]) might help identify patients with RCD. A normal internal rotation lag test result was most accurate for identifying patients without a full-thickness tear (LR, 0.04 [95% CI, 0.0-0.58]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Because specialists performed all the clinical maneuvers for RCD in each of the included studies with no finding evaluated in more than 3 studies, the generalizability of the results to a nonreferred population is unknown. A positive painful arc test result and a positive external rotation resistance test result were the most accurate findings for detecting RCD, whereas the presence of a positive lag test (external or internal rotation) result was most accurate for diagnosis of a full-thickness rotator cuff tear.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23982370     DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.276187

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  43 in total

Review 1.  Reliable diagnosis of posterosuperior rotator cuff tears requires a combination of clinical tests.

Authors:  Alexandre Lädermann; Timon Meynard; Patrick J Denard; Mohamed Ibrahim; Mo Saffarini; Philippe Collin
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2020-07-28       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 2.  Physiotherapy assessment of patients with rotator cuff pathology.

Authors:  Jane Moser
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2014-05-06

3.  Degree of tendon degeneration and stage of rotator cuff disease.

Authors:  Chris Hyunchul Jo; Won Hyoung Shin; Ji Wan Park; Ji Sun Shin; Ji Eun Kim
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Older Age as a Prognostic Factor of Attenuated Pain Recovery After Shoulder Arthroscopy.

Authors:  Corey B Simon; Joseph L Riley; Rogelio A Coronado; Carolina Valencia; Thomas W Wright; Michael W Moser; Kevin W Farmer; Steven Z George
Journal:  PM R       Date:  2015-09-12       Impact factor: 2.298

5.  Association of Strength Measurement with Rotator Cuff Tear in Patients with Shoulder Pain: The Rotator Cuff Outcomes Workgroup Study.

Authors:  Jennifer Earle Miller; Laurence D Higgins; Yan Dong; Jamie E Collins; Jonathan F Bean; Amee L Seitz; Jeffrey N Katz; Nitin B Jain
Journal:  Am J Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.159

6.  The Diagnostic Accuracy of Special Tests for Rotator Cuff Tear: The ROW Cohort Study.

Authors:  Nitin B Jain; Jennifer Luz; Laurence D Higgins; Yan Dong; Jon J P Warner; Elizabeth Matzkin; Jeffrey N Katz
Journal:  Am J Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 2.159

7.  Can self-report instruments of shoulder function capture functional differences in older adults with and without a rotator cuff tear?

Authors:  Meghan E Vidt; Anthony C Santago; Eric J Hegedus; Anthony P Marsh; Christopher J Tuohy; Gary G Poehling; Michael T Freehill; Michael E Miller; Katherine R Saul
Journal:  J Electromyogr Kinesiol       Date:  2015-07-09       Impact factor: 2.368

8.  Assessment of postoperative acromial and subacromial morphology after arthroscopic acromioplasty using magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Hye Jin Kang; Ji Seon Park; Kyung Nam Ryu; Yong Girl Rhee; Wook Jin; So Young Park
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2020-09-25       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  Biopsychosocial Influences on Shoulder Pain: Analyzing the Temporal Ordering of Postoperative Recovery.

Authors:  Corey B Simon; Carolina Valencia; Rogelio A Coronado; Samuel S Wu; Zhigang Li; Yunfeng Dai; Kevin W Farmer; Michael M Moser; Thomas W Wright; Roger B Fillingim; Steven Z George
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2019-12-28       Impact factor: 5.820

10.  Does This Patient Have Hip Osteoarthritis?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review.

Authors:  David Metcalfe; Daniel C Perry; Henry A Claireaux; David L Simel; Cheryl K Zogg; Matthew L Costa
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 56.272

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.