Article

Reliability and diagnostic accuracy of history and physical examination for diagnosing glenoid labral tears.

Department of Physical Therapy, Virginia Commonwealth University-Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, VA 23298, USA.
The American Journal of Sports Medicine (Impact Factor: 4.7). 02/2008; 36(1):162-8. DOI: 10.1177/0363546507307508
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Glenoid labral tears provide a diagnostic challenge.
Combinations of items in the patient history and physical examination will provide stronger diagnostic accuracy to suggest the presence or absence of glenoid labral tear than will individual items.
Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 1.
History and examination findings in patients with shoulder pain (N = 55) were compared with arthroscopic findings to determine diagnostic accuracy and intertester reliability.
The intertester reliability of the crank, anterior slide, and active compression tests was 0.20 to 0.24. A combined history of popping or catching and positive crank or anterior slide results yielded specificities of 0.91 and 1.00 and positive likelihood ratios of 3.0 and infinity, respectively. A positive anterior slide result combined with either a positive active compression or crank result yielded specificities of 0.91 and positive likelihood ratio of 2.75 and 3.75, respectively. Requiring only a single positive finding in the combination of popping or catching and the anterior slide or crank yielded sensitivities of 0.82 and 0.89 and negative likelihood ratios of 0.31 and 0.33, respectively.
The diagnostic accuracy of individual tests in previous studies is quite variable, which may be explained in part by the modest reliability of these tests. The combination of popping or catching with a positive crank or anterior slide result or a positive anterior slide result with a positive active compression or crank test result suggests the presence of a labral tear. The combined absence of popping or catching and a negative anterior slide or crank result suggests the absence of a labral tear.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Lori A Michener, Jun 29, 2015
2 Followers
 · 
213 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Orthopaedic special tests (OST) are commonly used in the assessment of the painful shoulder to assist to rule-in or rule-out specific pathology. A small number of tests with high levels of diagnostic accuracy have been identified but interexaminer reliability data is variable or lacking. The aim of this study was to determine the interexaminer reliability of a group of OST with demonstrated diagnostic accuracy at primary care level. Forty consecutive subjects with shoulder pain were recruited. Six tests were performed by two examiners (physiotherapists) on the same day. Tests included the active compression test, Hawkins-Kennedy test, drop-arm test, crank test, Kim test and belly-press test. 'Fair' reliability (kappa 0.36-0.38) was observed for the active compression test (labral pathology), Hawkins-Kennedy test and crank test. Prevalence of positive agreements was low for the active compression test (acromioclavicular joint), drop-arm test, Kim test and belly-press test. Prevalence and bias adjusted kappa (PABAK) values indicated 'substantial' reliability (0.65-0.78) for these tests. The active compression test (acromioclavicular joint), belly-press tests (observation and weakness), Kim test and drop-arm test demonstrate acceptable levels of interexaminer reliability in a group of patients with sub-acute and chronic shoulder conditions.
    Manual therapy 04/2011; 16(2):131-5. DOI:10.1016/j.math.2010.07.009 · 1.76 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    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.
    Physiotherapy 09/2010; 96(3):179-90. DOI:10.1016/j.physio.2009.12.002 · 2.11 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the evaluation of the painful shoulder, especially in the overhead athlete, diagnosing superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) lesions continues to challenge the clinician because of 1) the lack of specificity of examination tests for SLAP; 2) a paucity of well-controlled studies of those tests; and 3) the presence of coexisting confounding abnormalities. Some evidence indicates that multiple positive tests increase the likelihood that a SLAP lesion is present, but no one physical examination finding conclusively makes that diagnosis. The goals of this article were to review the physical examination techniques for making the diagnosis of SLAP lesions, to evaluate the clinical usefulness of those examinations, and to review the role of magnetic resonance imaging in making the diagnosis.
    Current Sports Medicine Reports 01/2009; 8(5):234-9. DOI:10.1249/JSR.0b013e3181b7f042 · 1.60 Impact Factor