Dataset Information

Evidence-Based Physical Examination for the Diagnosis of Subscapularis Tears: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Context

There is a renewed interest in diagnosing and treating subscapularis tears, but there is a paucity of clinical guidance to optimize diagnostic decision-making.

Objective

To perform a literature review to evaluate advanced maneuvers and special tests in the diagnosis of subscapularis tears and create a diagnostic algorithm for subscapularis pathology.

Data sources

PubMed, MEDLINE, Ovid, and Cochrane Reviews databases.

Study selection

Inclusion criteria consisted of level 1 and 2 studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that focused on physical examination.

Study design

Systematic review.

Level of evidence

Level 2.

Data extraction

Individual test characteristics (bear hug, belly press, lift-off, Napoleon, and internal rotation lag sign) were combined in series and in parallel to maximize clinical sensitivity and specificity for any special test evaluated in at least 2 studies. A secondary analysis utilized subjective pretest probabilities to create a clinical decision tree algorithm and provide posttest probabilities.

Results

A total of 3174 studies were identified, and 5 studies met inclusion criteria. The special test combination of the bear hug and belly press demonstrated the highest positive likelihood ratio (18.29). Overall, 3 special test combinations in series demonstrated a significant impact on posttest probabilities. With parallel testing, the combination of bear hug and belly press had the highest sensitivity (84%) and lowest calculated negative likelihood ratio (0.21).

Conclusion

The combined application of the bear hug and belly press physical examination maneuvers is an optimal combination for evaluating subscapularis pathology. Positive findings using this test combination in series with a likely pretest probability yield a 96% posttest probability; whereas, negative findings tested in parallel with an unlikely pretest probability yield a 12% posttest probability.

SUBMITTER: Dakkak A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7734364 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the diagnostic validity of clusters combining history elements and physical examination tests to diagnose partial or complete anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. DESIGN:Prospective diagnostic study. SETTINGS:Orthopaedic clinics (n = 2), family medicine clinics (n = 2) and community-dwelling. PARTICIPANTS:Consecutive patients with a knee complaint (n = 279) and consulting one of the participating orthopaedic surgeons (n = 3) or sport medicine physicians (n = 2). INTERVENTIONS:Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:History elements and physical examination tests performed independently were compared to the reference standard: an expert physicians' composite diagnosis including history elements, physical tests and confirmatory magnetic resonance imaging. Penalized logistic regression (LASSO) was used to identify history elements and physical examination tests associated with the diagnosis of ACL tear and recursive partitioning was used to develop diagnostic clusters. Diagnostic accuracy measures including sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), predictive values and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+/-) with associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS:Forty-three individuals received a diagnosis of partial or complete ACL tear (15.4% of total cohort). The Lachman test alone was able to diagnose partial or complete ACL tears (LR+: 38.4; 95%CI: 16.0-92.5). Combining a history of trauma during a pivot with a "popping" sensation also reached a high diagnostic validity for partial or complete tears (LR+: 9.8; 95%CI: 5.6-17.3). Combining a history of trauma during a pivot, immediate effusion after trauma and a positive Lachman test was able to identify individuals with a complete ACL tear (LR+: 17.5; 95%CI: 9.8-31.5). Finally, combining a negative history of pivot or a negative popping sensation during trauma with a negative Lachman or pivot shift test was able to exclude both partial or complete ACL tears (LR-: 0.08; 95%CI: 0.03-0.24). CONCLUSION:Diagnostic clusters combining history elements and physical examination tests can support the differential diagnosis of ACL tears compared to various knee disorders.

Project description:ObjectivesPhysicians often refer patients with musculoskeletal conditions to physical therapy. However, it is unclear to what extent physical therapists' treatment choices align with the evidence. The aim of this systematic review was to determine what percentage of physical therapy treatment choices for musculoskeletal conditions agree with management recommendations in evidence-based guidelines and systematic reviews.DesignSystematic review.SettingWe performed searches in Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Allied and Complementary Medicine, Scopus and Web of Science combining terms synonymous with 'practice patterns' and 'physical therapy' from the earliest record to April 2018.ParticipantsStudies that quantified physical therapy treatment choices for musculoskeletal conditions through surveys of physical therapists, audits of clinical notes and other methods (eg, audits of billing codes, clinical observation) were eligible for inclusion.Primary and secondary outcomesUsing medians and IQRs, we summarised the percentage of physical therapists who chose treatments that were recommended, not recommended and had no recommendation, and summarised the percentage of physical therapy treatments provided for various musculoskeletal conditions within the categories of recommended, not recommended and no recommendation. Results were stratified by condition and how treatment choices were assessed (surveys of physical therapists vs audits of clinical notes).ResultsWe included 94 studies. For musculoskeletal conditions, the median percentage of physical therapists who chose recommended treatments was 54% (n=23 studies; surveys completed by physical therapists) and the median percentage of patients that received recommended physical therapy-delivered treatments was 63% (n=8 studies; audits of clinical notes). For treatments not recommended, these percentages were 43% (n=37; surveys) and 27% (n=20; audits). For treatments with no recommendation, these percentages were 81% (n=37; surveys) and 45% (n=31; audits).ConclusionsMany physical therapists seem not to follow evidence-based guidelines when managing musculoskeletal conditions. There is considerable scope to increase use of recommended treatments and reduce use of treatments that are not recommended.Prospero registration numberCRD42018094979.