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

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

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

53 Citations (Scopus)
153 Downloads (Pure)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article numberCD007427
JournalCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Volume2013
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 30 Apr 2013

Fingerprint

Tendons
Primary Health Care
Tendinopathy
Shoulder Pain
Routine Diagnostic Tests
MEDLINE
Meta-Analysis
Outpatients
Shoulder Impingement Syndrome
Patient Advocacy
Bursitis
Sensitivity and Specificity
Shoulder Joint
Rotator Cuff
Arthroscopy
Local Anesthesia
Tears
Patient Selection
Case-Control Studies
Randomized Controlled Trials

Cite this

@article{d11d79d00b8a4cbc910c9f6701ac56b3,
title = "Physical tests for shoulder impingements and local lesions of bursa, tendon or labrum that may accompany impingement",
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.",
author = "Hanchard, {Nigel C.A.} and M{\'a}rio Lenza and Handoll, {Helen H.G.} and Yemisi Takwoingi",
year = "2013",
month = "4",
day = "30",
doi = "10.1002/14651858.CD007427.pub2",
language = "English",
volume = "2013",
journal = "The Cochrane database of systematic reviews",
issn = "1361-6137",
publisher = "Cochrane Collaboration",
number = "4",

}

Physical tests for shoulder impingements and local lesions of bursa, tendon or labrum that may accompany impingement. / Hanchard, Nigel C.A.; Lenza, Mário; Handoll, Helen H.G.; Takwoingi, Yemisi.

In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Vol. 2013, No. 4, CD007427, 30.04.2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Physical tests for shoulder impingements and local lesions of bursa, tendon or labrum that may accompany impingement

AU - Hanchard, Nigel C.A.

AU - Lenza, Mário

AU - Handoll, Helen H.G.

AU - Takwoingi, Yemisi

PY - 2013/4/30

Y1 - 2013/4/30

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84886807766&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/14651858.CD007427.pub2

DO - 10.1002/14651858.CD007427.pub2

M3 - Review article

C2 - 23633343

AN - SCOPUS:84886807766

VL - 2013

JO - The Cochrane database of systematic reviews

JF - The Cochrane database of systematic reviews

SN - 1361-6137

IS - 4

M1 - CD007427

ER -