Dataset Information

Screening of the cervical spine in subacromial shoulder pain: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Subacromial shoulder pain is a common clinical presentation with much diagnostic uncertainty. Some of this uncertainty relates to the involvement of the cervical spine as a source or contribution to subacromial shoulder pain. Currently, there is no accepted method of screening of the cervical spine in the presence of subacromial shoulder pain, which risks patients receiving misguided and/or ineffective interventions.

Objective

To evaluate approaches used to screen the cervical spine in patients with subacromial shoulder pain.

Design

Systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Methods

Electronic searches of PEDro and MEDLINE to December 2016 were conducted. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of interventions within the current scope of physiotherapy comprising of adult patients complaining of subacromial shoulder pain were included. Data relating to the method of cervical spine screening were extracted and synthesized categorically.

Results

One hundred and two studies were included. Twenty-six (25.5%) were categorized as "No method of screening undertaken or reported," 49 (48.0%) were categorized as "Localized cervical spine symptoms and/or radiculopathy/radicular pain," nine (8.8%) were categorized as "Cervical examination," two (2.0%) were categorized as "Manual testing," two (2.0%) were categorized as "History of cervical surgery," and 14 (13.7%) were categorized as using "Combined approaches."

Conclusion

Examination of the cervical spine in patients with subacromial shoulder pain is variable in randomized controlled trials. In many instances, no or minimal attempts to screen were undertaken or reported. This has potential research and management implications and further research is indicated to facilitate development of this aspect of examination.

SUBMITTER: Walker T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6620799 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Screening of the cervical spine in subacromial shoulder pain: A systematic review.

Walker Tom T Salt Emma E Lynch Greg G Littlewood Chris C

Shoulder & elbow 20180920 4

<h4>Background</h4>Subacromial shoulder pain is a common clinical presentation with much diagnostic uncertainty. Some of this uncertainty relates to the involvement of the cervical spine as a source or contribution to subacromial shoulder pain. Currently, there is no accepted method of screening of the cervical spine in the presence of subacromial shoulder pain, which risks patients receiving misguided and/or ineffective interventions.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate approaches used to screen the c ...[more]

PMID: 31316592

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere are currently many treatment options for patients with subacromial shoulder conditions (SSCs). Clinical decision-making regarding the best treatment option is often difficult. This study aims to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of treatment options for relieving pain and improving function in patients with SSCs.MethodsEight databases [including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, PEDro, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry] were searched from inception until April 2020. Randomised clinical/controlled trials of adult patients investigating the effects of nonsurgical (e.g. corticosteroid injections, therapeutic exercise, shockwave therapy) and surgical treatment for SSCs, compared with each other, placebo, usual care or no treatment, were retrieved. Pairs of reviewers screened studies independently, quality appraised eligible studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, extracted and checked data for accuracy. Primary outcomes were pain and disability in the short term (⩽3 months) and long term (⩾6 months). Direct and indirect evidence of treatment effectiveness was synthesised using random-effects network meta-analysis.ResultsThe review identified 177 eligible trials. Summary estimates (based on 99 trials providing suitable data, 6764 patients, 20 treatment options) showed small to moderate effects for several treatments, but no significant differences on pain or function between many active treatment comparisons. The primary analysis indicated that exercise and laser therapy may provide comparative benefit in terms of both pain and function at different follow-up time-points, with larger effects found for laser in the short term at 2-6 weeks, although direct evidence was provided by one trial only, and for exercise in the longer term [standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18, 0.59 at 3-6 months] compared with control. Sensitivity analyses excluding studies at increased risk of bias confirmed only the comparative effects of exercise as being robust for both pain and function up until 3-month follow-up.ConclusionCurrent evidence shows small to moderate effect sizes for most treatment options for SSCs. Six treatments had a high probability of being most effective, in the short term, for pain and function [acupuncture, manual therapy, exercise, exercise plus manual therapy, laser therapy and Microcurrent (MENS) (TENS)], but with low certainty for most treatment options. After accounting for risk of bias, there is evidence of moderate certainty for the comparative effects of exercise on function in patients with SSCs. Future large, high-quality pragmatic randomised trials or meta-analyses are needed to better understand whether specific subgroups of patients respond better to some treatments than others.

Project description:BackgroundArthroscopic sub-acromial decompression (decompressing the sub-acromial space by removing bone spurs and soft tissue arthroscopically) is a common surgery for subacromial shoulder pain, but its effectiveness is uncertain. We did a study to assess its effectiveness and to investigate the mechanism for surgical decompression.MethodsWe did a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group trial at 32 hospitals in the UK with 51 surgeons. Participants were patients who had subacromial pain for at least 3 months with intact rotator cuff tendons, were eligible for arthroscopic surgery, and had previously completed a non-operative management programme that included exercise therapy and at least one steroid injection. Exclusion criteria included a full-thickness torn rotator cuff. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to arthroscopic subacromial decompression, investigational arthroscopy only, or no treatment (attendance of one reassessment appointment with a specialist shoulder clinician 3 months after study entry, but no intervention). Arthroscopy only was a placebo as the essential surgical element (bone and soft tissue removal) was omitted. We did the randomisation with a computer-generated minimisation system. In the surgical intervention groups, patients were not told which type of surgery they were receiving (to ensure masking). Patients were followed up at 6 months and 1 year after randomisation; surgeons coordinated their waiting lists to schedule surgeries as close as possible to randomisation. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (0 [worst] to 48 [best]) at 6 months, analysed by intention to treat. The sample size calculation was based upon a target difference of 4·5 points (SD 9·0). This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01623011.FindingsBetween Sept 14, 2012, and June 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 313 patients to treatment groups (106 to decompression surgery, 103 to arthroscopy only, and 104 to no treatment). 24 [23%], 43 [42%], and 12 [12%] of the decompression, arthroscopy only, and no treatment groups, respectively, did not receive their assigned treatment by 6 months. At 6 months, data for the Oxford Shoulder Score were available for 90 patients assigned to decompression, 94 to arthroscopy, and 90 to no treatment. Mean Oxford Shoulder Score did not differ between the two surgical groups at 6 months (decompression mean 32·7 points [SD 11·6] vs arthroscopy mean 34·2 points [9·2]; mean difference -1·3 points (95% CI -3·9 to 1·3, p=0·3141). Both surgical groups showed a small benefit over no treatment (mean 29·4 points [SD 11·9], mean difference vs decompression 2·8 points [95% CI 0·5-5·2], p=0·0186; mean difference vs arthroscopy 4·2 [1·8-6·6], p=0·0014) but these differences were not clinically important. There were six study-related complications that were all frozen shoulders (in two patients in each group).InterpretationSurgical groups had better outcomes for shoulder pain and function compared with no treatment but this difference was not clinically important. Additionally, surgical decompression appeared to offer no extra benefit over arthroscopy only. The difference between the surgical groups and no treatment might be the result of, for instance, a placebo effect or postoperative physiotherapy. The findings question the value of this operation for these indications, and this should be communicated to patients during the shared treatment decision-making process.FundingArthritis Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, and the Royal College of Surgeons (England).

Dataset Information

Screening of the cervical spine in subacromial shoulder pain: A systematic review.

Background

Objective

Design

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Screening of the cervical spine in subacromial shoulder pain: A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets