Review article (meta-analysis)
Accuracy of Diagnostic Ultrasound in Patients With Suspected Subacromial Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2010.07.017Get rights and content

Abstract

Ottenheijm RP, Jansen MJ, Staal JB, van den Bruel A, Weijers RE, de Bie RA, Dinant G-J. Accuracy of diagnostic ultrasound in patients with suspected subacromial disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound for detecting subacromial disorders in patients presenting in primary and secondary care settings.

Data Sources

Medline and Embase were searched on June 9, 2010. In addition, the reference list of 1 systematic review and all included articles were searched to identify relevant studies.

Study Selection

Two reviewers independently selected the articles evaluating the accuracy of ultrasound for detecting subacromial disorders from the title and abstracts retrieved by the literature search. Selection criteria were ultrasound frequency greater than or equal to 7.5MHz as index test, surgery, magnetic resonance imaging and/or radiography as reference standards, and subacromial disorders as target conditions.

Data Extraction

Two reviewers independently extracted the data on study characteristics and results to construct 2 by 2 tables and performed a methodologic quality assessment.

Data Synthesis

Twenty-three studies were included: 22 reported on full-thickness rotator cuff tears, 15 on partial-thickness tears, 3 on subacromial bursitis, 2 on tendinopathy, and 2 on calcifying tendonitis, respectively. For full-thickness tears, pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was .95 (95% confidence interval, .90–.97), and specificity .96 (.93–.98). For partial-thickness tears, pooled sensitivity was .72 (.58–.83), and specificity .93 (.89–.96). Statistical pooling was not possible for the other disorders. For subacromial bursitis, sensitivity ranged from .79 to .81, and specificity from .94 to .98. For tendinopathy, sensitivity ranged from .67 to .93, specificity from .88 to 1.00. Sensitivity for calcifying tendonitis was 1.00 in both studies, with specificity ranging from .85 to .98.

Conclusions

We strongly recommend ultrasound in patients for whom conservative treatment fails, to rule in or out full-thickness tears, to rule in partial-thickness tears, and to a lesser extent to diagnose tendinopathy, subacromial bursitis, and calcifying tendonitis. These results can help physicians tailor treatment.

Section snippets

Search Strategy

A well conducted systematic review on this topic was published in 2003, using a search strategy comparable to ours.17 This review was based on a search from 1985 to October 2001. We updated this review by using its reference list and conducting a new search, incorporating the methods recommended in the Cochrane Handbook on Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Tests.22 Two reviewers (M.J.J., R.P.O.) searched the bibliographic databases of PubMed and Embase from 2001 up to June 9, 2010, with a set of

Study Selection and Characteristics

Our search strategy yielded 137 records. Figure 1 summarizes the flow of records through the review. Of the 114 excluded records, 18 were duplicates, and 56 were rejected on the basis of the title or abstract. Of the remaining records, 8 provided insufficient data, and 32 were excluded for other reasons: other populations, other target condition, US not used as index test, US transducer frequencies less than 7.5MHz, or arthrography as a reference standard.

Twenty-three studies thus met the

Statement of Main Results

To our knowledge, this is the first time a systematic review has examined the accuracy of US to diagnose the full spectrum of subacromial disorders. Our comprehensive review identified data for tendinopathy, calcifying tendonitis, subacromial bursitis, and partial-thickness and full-thickness tears. The results indicate that in a secondary care setting in patients in whom conservative treatment has failed, US has a high diagnostic accuracy for most of these disorders.

Tests with high sensitivity

Conclusions

In order to achieve appropriate treatment decisions, we strongly recommend the use of US in patients in whom conservative treatment has failed, to rule full-thickness tears in or out, to rule in partial-thickness tear, and to a lesser extent to diagnose tendinopathy, subacromial bursitis, and calcifying tendonitis. The diagnostic accuracy of US in patients with acute complaints remains to be determined.

Suppliers

Acknowledgments

We thank Frank Buntinx, MD, PhD for his methodologic advice, and Jan Klerkx for linguistic advice.

References (62)

  • J.B. Reitsma et al.

    Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews

    J Clin Epidemiol

    (2005)
  • C.Y. Chang et al.

    Comparison of shoulder ultrasound and MR imaging in diagnosing full-thickness rotator cuff tears

    Clin Imaging

    (2002)
  • C. Martin-Hervas et al.

    Ultrasonographic and magnetic resonance images of rotator cuff lesions compared with arthroscopy or open surgery findings

    J Shoulder Elbow Surg

    (2001)
  • J.W. Read et al.

    Shoulder ultrasound: diagnostic accuracy for impingement syndrome, rotator cuff tear, and biceps tendon pathology

    J Shoulder Elbow Surg

    (1998)
  • S.S. Burkhart et al.

    Arthroscopic repair of massive rotator cuff tears with stage 3 and 4 fatty degeneration

    Arthroscopy

    (2007)
  • S.D. Bot et al.

    Incidence and prevalence of complaints of the neck and upper extremity in general practice

    Ann Rheum Dis

    (2005)
  • L.U. Bigliani et al.

    Subacromial impingement syndrome

    J Bone Joint Surg Am

    (1997)
  • C.S. Neer

    Impingement lesions

    Clin Orthop Rel Res

    (1983)
  • A.N. Bamji et al.

    The painful shoulder: can consultants agree?

    Br J Rheumatol

    (1996)
  • A.F. de Winter et al.

    Diagnostic classification of shoulder disorders: interobserver agreement and determinants of disagreement

    Ann Rheum Dis

    (1999)
  • P.J. Millett et al.

    Rehabilitation of the rotator cuff: an evaluation-based approach

    J Am Acad Orthop Surg

    (2006)
  • J. Dinnes et al.

    The effectiveness of diagnostic tests for the assessment of shoulder pain due to soft tissue disorders: a systematic review

    Health Technol Assess

    (2003)
  • W. Middleton et al.

    Sonography of the rotator cuff: analysis of interobserver variability

    AJR Am J Roentgenol

    (2004)
  • C. Martinoli et al.

    US of the shoulder: non-rotator cuff disorders

    Radiographics

    (2003)
  • J.O. de Jesus et al.

    Accuracy of MRI, MR arthrography, and ultrasound in the diagnosis of rotator cuff tears: a meta-analysis

    AJR Am J Roentgenol

    (2009)
  • Handbook for DTA reviews

  • P. Whiting et al.

    Development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies

    Health Technol Assess

    (2004)
  • A. Al-Shawi et al.

    The detection of full thickness rotator cuff tears using ultrasound

    J Bone Joint Surg Br

    (2008)
  • D.M. Cullen et al.

    Diagnostic accuracy of shoulder ultrasound performed by a single operator

    Australas Radiol

    (2007)
  • Cited by (88)

    • Bilateral magnetic resonance imaging findings in individuals with unilateral shoulder pain

      2019, Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
      Citation Excerpt :

      Previous investigations have reported alterations in asymptomatic shoulders using ultrasound (US)20,23,28,29,31,39,46,51,52 and MRI.6,9,18,25,32,33,41,43 The most common findings included partial- and full-thickness tears of the SST and IST tendons with a prevalence ranging from 2% to 95%.7,10,18,24,26,29,30,32-34,42,44,51,52 These past studies focused on describing alterations in only the SST and IST tendons or presented a grouped prevalence of all rotator cuff tendons, hindering a detailed evaluation of which tendons were affected.

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit on the authors or on any organization with which the authors are associated.

    Reprints are not available from the author.

    View full text