Toni Lange1, Filip Struyf2, Jochen Schmitt1, Jörg Lützner3, Christian Kopkow4. 1. University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Center for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany. 2. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610 Wilrijk, Belgium. 3. University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany. 4. University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany; Hochschule für Gesundheit (University of Applied Sciences), Department of Applied Health Sciences, Gesundheitscampus 6-8, D-44801 Bochum, Germany. Electronic address: christian.kopkow@hs-gesundheit.de.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to summarize and evaluate intra- and interrater reliability research of physical examination tests used for the assessment of scapular dyskinesis. BACKGROUND: Scapular dyskinesis, defined as alteration of normal scapular kinematics, is described as a non-specific response to different shoulder pathologies. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED and PEDro until March 20th, 2015. Methodological quality was assessed with the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL) by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: The search strategy revealed 3259 articles, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. These studies evaluated the reliability of 41 test and test variations used for the assessment of scapular dyskinesis. CONCLUSION: This review identified a lack of high-quality studies evaluating intra- as well as interrater reliability of tests used for the assessment of scapular dyskinesis. In addition, reliability measures differed between included studies hindering proper cross-study comparisons. The effect of manual correction of the scapula on shoulder symptoms was evaluated in only one study, which is striking, since symptom alteration tests are used in routine care to guide further treatment. Thus, there is a strong need for further research in this area. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnosis, level 3a.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to summarize and evaluate intra- and interrater reliability research of physical examination tests used for the assessment of scapular dyskinesis. BACKGROUND:Scapular dyskinesis, defined as alteration of normal scapular kinematics, is described as a non-specific response to different shoulder pathologies. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED and PEDro until March 20th, 2015. Methodological quality was assessed with the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL) by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: The search strategy revealed 3259 articles, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. These studies evaluated the reliability of 41 test and test variations used for the assessment of scapular dyskinesis. CONCLUSION: This review identified a lack of high-quality studies evaluating intra- as well as interrater reliability of tests used for the assessment of scapular dyskinesis. In addition, reliability measures differed between included studies hindering proper cross-study comparisons. The effect of manual correction of the scapula on shoulder symptoms was evaluated in only one study, which is striking, since symptom alteration tests are used in routine care to guide further treatment. Thus, there is a strong need for further research in this area. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnosis, level 3a.
Authors: Juan Guerrero-Henriquez; Mauricio Oyarce-Mella; Jimmy Reyes Rocabado; David Olivares-Ponce; Omar Olivares-Lee; Stefano Pérez-Pasten; Martin Vargas-Matamala Journal: J Man Manip Ther Date: 2021-08-30
Authors: Ruben Fernandez-Matias; Pablo Gallardo-Zamora; Cristina Lorenzo Sanchez-Aguilera; Hector Mardones-Varela; Tomas Gallego-Izquierdo; Daniel Pecos-Martin Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-12-28 Impact factor: 4.241