A prospective study of shoulder pain in primary care: Prevalence of imaged pathology and response to guided diagnostic blocks
2011

Shoulder Pain in Primary Care: Study on Imaging and Diagnostic Blocks

Sample size: 208 publication 10 minutes Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Angela Cadogan, Mark Laslett, Wayne A Hing, Peter J McNair, Mark H Coates

Primary Institution: Health & Rehabilitation Research Institute, AUT University

Hypothesis

What is the prevalence of imaged pathology in primary care patients with shoulder pain and how does it relate to their response to diagnostic blocks?

Conclusion

The study found that rotator cuff and subacromial bursa pathologies were the most common findings, and certain imaging results were associated with positive responses to diagnostic injections.

Supporting Evidence

  • Rotator cuff pathology was found in 50% of ultrasound scans.
  • 34% of subjects reported a positive response to subacromial bursa injections.
  • Full thickness supraspinatus tears were associated with positive responses to injections.
  • Biceps tendon sheath effusion was linked to positive responses in glenohumeral joint injections.

Takeaway

This study looked at people with shoulder pain to see what problems showed up on scans and how they responded to pain relief injections.

Methodology

Patients with shoulder pain underwent x-rays, ultrasound scans, and diagnostic injections to assess pain response.

Potential Biases

Potential selection bias due to withdrawal of subjects with varying pain levels before MRA.

Limitations

The study may not represent all patients as those without ACC claims might be underrepresented, and not all subjects could undergo MRA due to costs.

Participant Demographics

{"mean_age":42,"gender_distribution":{"male":107,"female":101},"dominant_arm_affected":110,"employment_status":{"employed":166,"modified_duties":18,"off_work":7,"not_employed":41}}

Statistical Information

P-Value

p<0.05

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1186/1471-2474-12-119

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication