Shoulder Pain — Where Are We Now?

Purpose of Review Shoulder pain is common and costly. For the past century, diagnosis and management has been based upon presumed patho-anatomical abnormalities. With the evolution of imaging techniques and new insight about the causes of musculoskeletal pain, this review evaluates the evidence that a patho-anatomical approach remains justified. Recent Findings Imaging modalities have developed considerably but, so far, have only proven value in evaluating full thickness rotator cuff tears prior to surgery. Correlation between imaging findings and symptoms is otherwise poor, with limited evidence of the value and impact of imaging for decision-making. Much of shoulder pain is chronic and few people have single-site musculoskeletal pain. Pain studies suggest that chronic shoulder pain is associated with both central and peripheral pain sensitisation. Moreover, functional MRI points to an effect of cognitive affective pain processing rather than nociception. Few of the established therapies, medical or surgical, that treat the presumed patho-anatomical cause have been shown to have lasting benefit. Much of the evidence suggests that shoulder pain is more similar than different from mechanical low back pain. For most people with shoulder pain, the best approach might well be de-medicalisation, support to (self)manage pain, emphasis on retaining movement and identifying adverse beliefs and risk factors for disability and chronicity. Approaches like this are currently being evaluated and more research is desperately required

Costs of shoulder pain in primary care consulters: a prospective cohort study in The Netherlands

BACKGROUND: Shoulder pain is common in primary care, and has an unfavourable outcome in many patients. Information on the costs associated with health care use and loss of productivity in patients with shoulder pain is very scarce. The objective of this study was to determine shoulder pain related costs during the 6 months after first consultation in general practice METHODS: A prospective cohort study consisting of 587 patients with a new episode of shoulder pain was conducted with a follow-up period of 6 months. Data on costs were collected by means of a cost diary during 6 months. RESULTS: 84% of the patients completed all cost diaries. The mean consumption of direct health care and non-health related care was low. During 6 months after first consultation for shoulder pain, the mean total costs a patient generated were €689. Almost 50% of this total concerned indirect costs, caused by sick leave from paid work. A small proportion (12%) of the population generated 74% of the total costs. CONCLUSION: The total costs in the 6 months after first consultation for shoulder pain in primary care, mostly generated by a small part of the population, are not alarmingly high

Physical examination for lumbar radiculopathy due to disc herniation in patients with low-back pain (Protocol)

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: The general aim of our review is to provide information that may assist the clinician in making decisions about appropriate management in patients with low-back pain and leg pain suspected of having radicular pain and radiculopathy due to disc herniation. More specifically, the objective of this systematic review is to assess the diagnostic performance of tests performed during physical examination in the identification of radicular pain and radiculopathy due to lumbar disc herniation in patients with low-back and leg pain. The secondary objective of this review is to assess the influence of sources of heterogeneity on the diagnostic accuracy of tests performed during physical examination, in particular the type of reference standard, health care setting, spectrum of disease, and study design

Brief pain re-assessment provided more accurate prognosis than baseline information for low-back or shoulder pain

Background Research investigating prognosis in musculoskeletal pain conditions has only been moderately successful in predicting which patients are unlikely to recover. Clinical decision making could potentially be improved by combining information taken at baseline and re-consultation. Methods Data from four prospective clinical cohorts of adults presenting to UK and Dutch primary care with low-back or shoulder pain was analysed, assessing long-term disability at 6 or 12 months and including baseline and 4–6 week assessments of pain. Baseline versus short-term assessments of pain, and previously validated multivariable prediction models versus repeat assessment, were compared to assess predictive performance of long-term disability outcome. A hypothetical clinical scenario was explored which made efficient use of both baseline and repeated assessment to identify patients likely to have a poor prognosis and decide on further treatment. Results Short-term repeat assessment of pain was better than short-term change or baseline score at predicting long-term disability improvement across all cohorts. Short-term repeat assessment of pain was only slightly more predictive of long-term recovery (c-statistics 0.78, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.83 and 0.75, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.82) than a multivariable baseline prognostic model in the two cohorts presenting such a model (c-statistics 0.71, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.76 and 0.72, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.78). Combining optimal prediction at baseline using a multivariable prognostic model with short-term repeat assessment of pain in those with uncertain prognosis in a hypothetical clinical scenario resulted in reduction in the number of patients with an uncertain probability of recovery, thereby reducing the instances where patients may be inappropriately referred or reassured. Conclusions Incorporating short-term repeat assessment of pain into prognostic models could potentially optimise the clinical usefulness of prognostic information

The Nordic Subpopulation Research Programme: prediction of treatment outcome in patients with low back pain treated by chiropractors - does the psychological profile matter?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is clinically important to be able to select patients suitable for treatment and to be able to predict with some certainty the outcome for patients treated for low back pain (LBP). It is not known to what degree outcome among chiropractic patients is affected by psychological factors.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>To investigate if some demographic, psychological, and clinical variables can predict outcome with chiropractic care in patients with LBP.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A prospective multi-center practice-based study was carried out, in which demographic, clinical and psychological information was collected at base-line. Outcome was established at the 4^thvisit and after three months. The predictive value was studied for all base-line variables, individually and in a multivariable analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In all, 55 of 99 invited chiropractors collected information on 731 patients. At the 4^thvisit data were available on 626 patients and on 464 patients after 3 months. Fee subsidization (OR 3.2; 95% CI 1.9-5.5), total duration of pain in the past year (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.0-2.2), and general health (OR 1.2; 95% CI 1.1-1.4) remained in the final model as predictors of treatment outcome at the 4^thvisit. The sensitivity was low (12%), whereas the specificity was high (97%). At the three months follow-up, duration of pain in the past year (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.4-3.1), and pain in other parts of the spine in the past year (OR1.6; 1.1-2.5) were independently associated with outcome. However, both the sensitivity and specificity were relatively low (60% and 50%). The addition of the psychological variables did not improve the models and none of the psychological variables remained significant in the final analyses. There was a positive gradient in relation to the number of positive predictor variables and outcome, both at the 4^thvisit and after 3 months.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Psychological factors were not found to be relevant in the prediction of treatment outcome in Swedish chiropractic patients with LBP.</p

Evaluation of the measurement properties of the Manchester foot pain and disability index

BACKGROUND: The Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index (MFPDI, 19 items) was developed to measure functional limitations, pain and appearance for patients with foot pain and is frequently used in both observational studies and randomised controlled trials. A Dutch version of the MFPDI was developed. The aims of this study were to evaluate all the measurement properties for the Dutch version of the MFPDI and to evaluate comparability to the original version. METHOD: The MFPDI was translated into Dutch using a forward/backward translation process. The dimensionality was evaluated using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Measurement properties were evaluated per subscale according to the COSMIN taxonomy consisting of: reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability and measurement error), validity (structural validity, content validity and cross-cultural validity comparing the Dutch version to the English version) responsiveness and interpretation. RESULTS: The questionnaire consists of three scales, measuring foot function, foot pain and perception. The reliability of the foot function scale is acceptable (Cronbach’s α > 0.7, ICC = 0.7, SEM = 2.2 on 0-18 scale). The construct validity of the function and pain scale was confirmed and only the pain scale contains one item with differential item functioning (DIF). The responsiveness of the function and pain scale is moderate when compared to anchor questions. CONCLUSION: Results using the Dutch MFPDI version can be compared to results using the original version. The foot function sub-scale (items 1-9) is a reliable and valid sub-scale. This study indicates that the use of the MFPDI as a longitudinal instrument might be problematic for measuring change in musculoskeletal foot pain due to moderate responsiveness

Predictors of long-term pain and disability in patients with low back pain investigated by magnetic resonance imaging: A longitudinal study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is possible that clinical outcome of low back pain (LBP) differs according to the presence or absence of spinal abnormalities on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), in which case there could be value in using MRI findings to refine case definition of LBP in epidemiological research. We therefore conducted a longitudinal study to explore whether spinal abnormalities on MRI for LBP predict prognosis after 18 months.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A consecutive series of patients aged 20-64 years, who were investigated by MRI because of mechanical LBP (median duration of current episode 16.2 months), were identified from three radiology departments, and those who agreed completed self-administered questionnaires at baseline and after a mean follow-up period of 18.5 months (a mean of 22.2 months from MRI investigation). MRI scans were assessed blind to other clinical information, according to a standardised protocol. Associations of baseline MRI findings with pain and disability at follow-up, adjusted for treatment and for other potentially confounding variables, were assessed by Poisson regression and summarised by prevalence ratios (PRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Questionnaires were completed by 240 (74%) of the patients who had agreed to be followed up. Among these 111 men and 129 women, 175 (73%) reported LBP in the past four weeks, 89 (37%) frequent LBP, and 72 (30%) disabling LBP. In patients with initial disc degeneration there was an increased risk of frequent (PR 1.3, 95%CI 1.0-1.9) and disabling LBP (PR 1.7, 95%CI 1.1-2.5) at follow-up. No other associations were found between MRI abnormalities and subsequent outcome.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our findings suggest that the MRI abnormalities examined are not major predictors of outcome in patients with LBP. They give no support to the use of MRI findings as a way of refining case definition for LBP in epidemiological research.</p

Treatment of forefoot problems in older people: study protocol for a randomised clinical trial comparing podiatric treatment to standardised shoe advice

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Foot problems in general and forefoot problems in particular can lead to a decrease in mobility and a higher risk of falling. Forefoot problems increase with age and are more common in women than in men. Around 20% of people over 65 suffer from non-traumatic foot problems and 60% of these problems are localised in the forefoot. Little is known about the best way to treat forefoot problems in older people. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of two common modes of treatment in the Netherlands: shoe advice and podiatric treatment. This paper describes the design of this study.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study is designed as a pragmatic randomised clinical trial (RCT) with 2 parallel intervention groups. People aged 50 years and over who have visited their general practitioner (GP) with non traumatic pain in the forefoot in the preceding year and those who will visit their GP during the recruitment period with a similar complaint will be recruited for this study. Participants must be able to walk unaided for 7 metres and be able to fill in questionnaires. Exclusion criteria are: rheumatoid arthritis, neuropathy of the foot or pain caused by skin problems (e.g. warts, eczema). Inclusion and exclusion criteria will be assessed by a screening questionnaire and baseline assessment. Those consenting to participation will be randomly assigned to either a group receiving a standardised shoe advice leaflet (n = 100) or a group receiving podiatric treatment (n = 100). Primary outcomes will be the severity of forefoot pain (0-10 on a numerical rating scale) and foot function (Foot Function 5-pts Index and Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index). Treatment adherence, social participation and quality of life will be the secondary outcomes. All outcomes will be obtained through self-administered questionnaires at the start of the study and after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Data will be analysed according to the "intention-to-treat" principle using multilevel level analysis.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Strength of this study is the comparison between two common primary care treatments for forefoot problems, ensuring a high external validity of this trial.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): <a href="http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2212">NTR2212</a></p

Inter-observer reproducibility of measurements of range of motion in patients with shoulder pain using a digital inclinometer

BACKGROUND: Reproducible measurements of the range of motion are an important prerequisite for the interpretation of study results. The digital inclinometer is considered to be a useful instrument because it is inexpensive and easy to use. No previous study assessed inter-observer reproducibility of range of motion measurements with a digital inclinometer by physical therapists in a large sample of patients. METHODS: Two physical therapists independently measured the passive range of motion of the glenohumeral abduction and the external rotation in 155 patients with shoulder pain. Agreement was quantified by calculation of the mean differences between the observers and the standard deviation (SD) of this difference and the limits of agreement, defined as the mean difference ± 1.96*SD of this difference. Reliability was quantified by means of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: The limits of agreement were 0.8 ± 19.6 for glenohumeral abduction and -4.6 ± 18.8 for external rotation (affected side) and quite similar for the contralateral side and the differences between sides. The percentage agreement within 10° for these measurements were 72% and 70% respectively. The ICC ranged from 0.28 to 0.90 (0.83 and 0.90 for the affected side). CONCLUSIONS: The inter-observer agreement was found to be poor. If individual patients are assessed by two different observers, differences in range of motion of less than 20–25 degrees can not be distuinguished from measurement error. In contrast, acceptable reliability was found for the inclinometric measurements of the affected side and the differences between the sides, indicating that the inclimeter can be used in studies in which groups are compared

A prospective study of shoulder pain in primary care: Prevalence of imaged pathology and response to guided diagnostic blocks

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The prevalence of imaged pathology in primary care has received little attention and the relevance of identified pathology to symptoms remains unclear. This paper reports the prevalence of imaged pathology and the association between pathology and response to diagnostic blocks into the subacromial bursa (SAB), acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) and glenohumeral joint (GHJ).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Consecutive patients with shoulder pain recruited from primary care underwent standardised x-ray, diagnostic ultrasound scan and diagnostic injections of local anaesthetic into the SAB and ACJ. Subjects who reported less than 80% reduction in pain following either of these injections were referred for a magnetic resonance arthrogram (MRA) and GHJ diagnostic block. Differences in proportions of positive and negative imaging findings in the anaesthetic response groups were assessed using Fishers test and odds ratios were calculated a for positive anaesthetic response (PAR) to diagnostic blocks.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In the 208 subjects recruited, the rotator cuff and SAB displayed the highest prevalence of pathology on both ultrasound (50% and 31% respectively) and MRA (65% and 76% respectively). The prevalence of PAR following SAB injection was 34% and ACJ injection 14%. Of the 59% reporting a negative anaesthetic response (NAR) for both of these injections, 16% demonstrated a PAR to GHJ injection. A full thickness tear of supraspinatus on ultrasound was associated with PAR to SAB injection (OR 5.02; <it>p </it>< 0.05). Ultrasound evidence of a biceps tendon sheath effusion (OR 8.0; <it>p </it>< 0.01) and an intact rotator cuff (OR 1.3; <it>p </it>< 0.05) were associated with PAR to GHJ injection. No imaging findings were strongly associated with PAR to ACJ injection (<it>p </it>≤ 0.05).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Rotator cuff and SAB pathology were the most common findings on ultrasound and MRA. Evidence of a full thickness supraspinatus tear was associated with symptoms arising from the subacromial region, and a biceps tendon sheath effusion and an intact rotator cuff were associated with an intra-articular GHJ pain source. When combined with clinical information, these results may help guide diagnostic decision making in primary care.</p