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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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