Hanchard Nigel C A, Lenza Mário, Handoll Helen H G, Takwoingi Yemisi
Health and Social Care Institute, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Apr 30;2013(4):CD007427. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007427.pub2.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
撞击是肩部疼痛的常见原因。撞击机制可能发生在肩峰下(喙肩弓下方)或关节内(肩关节内),并且可能伴有多种继发性病变。这些病变包括肩峰下 - 三角肌下滑囊炎(滑囊肩峰下部分、三角肌下部分或两者的炎症)、影响肩袖或肱二头肌长头肌腱的肌腱病或撕裂,以及盂唇损伤。基于体格检查的准确诊断将有助于早期优化临床管理方法。大多数肩部疼痛患者在初级保健机构接受诊断和治疗。
评估体格检查对肩部撞击(肩峰下或关节内)或可能伴随撞击的滑囊、肩袖或盂唇局部病变的诊断准确性,这些患者的症状和/或病史提示存在上述任何一种疾病。
我们分两个阶段检索电子数据库中的原始研究。第一阶段,我们检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL、AMED和DARE(均从数据库建库至2005年11月)。第二阶段,我们检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE和AMED(2005年至2010年2月15日)。检索限于英文撰写的文章。
我们纳入了直接比较一项或多项肩部撞击体格指标检查与任何临床环境中参考检查准确性的诊断试验准确性研究。我们考虑了横断面或队列设计(回顾性或前瞻性)的诊断试验准确性研究、病例对照研究和随机对照试验。
两对综述作者独立进行研究选择,使用QUADAS评估研究质量,并将数据提取到专门设计的表格中,记录患者特征(包括护理环境)、研究设计、指标检查和参考标准,以及诊断2×2表格。我们给出了指标检查敏感性和特异性的信息,并带有95%置信区间(95%CI)。未进行荟萃分析。
我们纳入了33项研究,涉及3852例患者的4002个肩部。尽管28项研究是前瞻性的,但研究质量总体上仍然较差。主要反映在大多数研究中使用手术作为参考检查,除两项研究外,所有研究均被判定不符合具有代表性患者谱的标准。然而,即使这两项研究也只是部分从初级保健机构招募患者。33项研究中评估的目标疾病分为五个主要类别:肩峰下或关节内撞击、肩袖肌腱病或撕裂、肱二头肌长头肌腱病或撕裂、盂唇病变以及多种未分化的目标疾病。大多数研究使用关节镜手术作为参考标准。八项研究采用了可能适用于初级保健(局部麻醉,一项研究;超声,三项研究)或医院门诊环境(磁共振成像,四项研究)的参考标准。一项研究使用了多种参考标准,其中一些适用于初级保健或医院门诊环境。在其中两项研究中,使用的参考标准对于识别目标疾病是可接受的,但在六项研究中只是部分可接受。这些研究评估了众多标准、改良或组合指标检查以及14项新的指标检查。有170种目标疾病/指标检查组合,但只有六项指标检查在两项研究中的执行和解释相似。只有两项关于改良空罐试验诊断肩袖全层撕裂的研究,以及两项关于改良前滑试验诊断II型上盂唇前后向(SLAP)损伤的研究在临床上是同质的。由于研究数量有限,认为进行荟萃分析不合适。根据目标疾病分组的170种目标疾病/指标检查组合的每项研究的敏感性和特异性估计值在森林图中呈现。
在初级保健中,没有足够的证据来选择用于诊断肩部撞击以及可能伴随撞击的滑囊、肌腱或盂唇局部病变的体格检查。大量文献显示,检查的表现和解释存在极大差异,这阻碍了证据的综合和/或临床适用性。