Reliability of physical examination tests used in the assessment of patients with shoulder problems: a systematic review.

Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield S10 2BP, UK.
Physiotherapy (Impact Factor: 2.11). 09/2010; 96(3):179-90. DOI: 10.1016/
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Shoulder pain is a common clinical problem, and numerous tests are used to diagnose structural pathology.
To systematically review the reliability of physical examination procedures used in the clinical examination of patients with shoulder pain.
MEDLINE, PEDro, AMED, PsychInfo, Cochrane Library (2009) and CINAHL were searched from the earliest record on the database to June 2009.
Reliability studies that included any patients with shoulder pain were analysed for their quality and reliability results.
Pre-established criteria were used to judge the quality of the studies (high quality >60% methods score) and satisfactory levels of reliability (kappa or intraclass correlation coefficient > or =0.85, sensitivity analysis 0.70). A qualitative synthesis was performed based on levels of evidence.
Thirty-six studies were included with a mean methods score of 57%. Seventeen studies were deemed to be of high quality; high-quality studies were less likely to meet the pre-agreed level of reliability. The majority of studies indicated poor reliability for all procedures investigated.
Overall, the evidence regarding reliability was contradictory.
There is no consistent evidence that any examination procedure used in shoulder assessments has acceptable levels of reliability. Alternate methods of classification which are reliable should be used to classify patients with shoulder problems.

1 Follower
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The shoulder is often afflicted by musculo-skeletal diseases. However, shoulder evaluation is limited to qualitative measures affecting the specificity and accuracy of diagnosis. Three-dimensional motion analysis could complement conventional treatment with quantitative functional measures. The interaction between shoulder joints is estimated by the scapulo-humeral rhythm, but its pronounced variability of measurement hampers appropriate clinical use. Hence, the main objective of the thesis was to reduce the variability in the measure of the scapulo-humeral rhythm. The effect of the calculation method and conditions of motion (arm axial rotation, load, velocity, muscular activity) were tested on healthy subjects. Shoulder joints kinematics were obtained with an optoelectronic system using a kinematical chain and an extended Kalman filter. The common method of scapulo-humeral rhythm calculation extracts the angles of gleno-humeral elevation and scapulo-thoracic lateral rotation. Since these angles are not co-planar, their sum does not correspond to the arm elevation angle. A novel approach of joint contribution including all the rotations of each joint was developed and compared to the common method. The common method systematically overestimated gleno-humeral contribution in comparison to the proposed method. The new scapulo-humeral rhythm calculation allows a dynamic functional evaluation of the shoulder and reduces inter-subject variability. Shoulder coordination was compared on typical supraspinatus rehabilitation exercises contrasting in arm axial rotation, and the effect of adding external load was tested. The ''full-can'' exercise increased the scapulo-humeral rhythm and gleno-humeral contribution, which correspond to supraspinatus function. In contrast, the ''empty-can'' exercise increased scapulo-thoracic contribution, which is associated to compensation to avoid gleno-humeral contribution. The use of external load in supraspinatus rehabilitation seems justified by a similar scapulo-humeral rhythm and superior gleno-humeral elevation. Shoulder motion is often measured or evaluated in static or dynamic and passive or active conditions. However, the effect of these conditions on shoulder coordination remains uncertain. The comparison of these conditions revealed significant differences on shoulder kinematics showing the importance to consider conditions of motion for acquisition or comparison of data.
    08/2014, Degree: PhD, Supervisor: Mickael Begon
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Disorders related to shoulder impingement are consistently classified as the most common diagnostic subgroup of shoulder pain. A variety of interventions for shoulder impingement have been proposed, including manual therapy and exercises. Despite a growing body of evidence on these interventions, their effectiveness has not yet been conclusively established. Objectives: To establish the current state of evidence on the effectiveness of manual therapy and exercises to improve patient-centered outcomes in adults with shoulder impingement. Methods: This systematic review updates a previous systematic review by the same authors. It includes evidence from randomized controlled trials published between October 2008 and September 2012. Comprehensive searches were made of seven relevant electronic databases including MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PEDro, supplemented by further sources. Methodological quality was assessed with the PEDro scale. Results: Nine randomized controlled trials were included and synthesized narratively. The trials varied considerably in methodological quality and reporting quality, as well as in terms of the interventions and comparisons considered, and in the outcome measures used. Clinical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. The trials provide limited evidence to support the effectiveness of a diversity of manual therapy and exercise approaches for treating shoulder impingement. Conclusions: This systematic review update provides some further evidence supporting the effectiveness of manual therapy and exercises for shoulder impingement, but methodological deficits/risk of bias warrant cautious interpretation. Further research is needed to establish the optimal manual therapy and exercise techniques and parameters.
    Physical Therapy Reviews 08/2013; 18(4):263-284. DOI:10.1179/108331913X13709388114510


Available from
Dec 18, 2014