Intended for healthcare professionals

  1. Education
  2. Subacromial...
  3. Subacromial decompression surgery for adults with shoulder pain: a clinical practice guideline
Practice Rapid Recommendations

Subacromial decompression surgery for adults with shoulder pain: a clinical practice guideline

BMJ 2019; 364 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l294 (Published 06 February 2019) Cite this as: BMJ 2019;364:l294

Linked Editorial

Subacromial decompression surgery for shoulder pain

Visual summary of recommendation

or Subacromial decompression surgery Nonoperativemanagement only Arthroscopic subacromial decompression plusnonoperative management Including guided physical therapy, exercise programmes, NSAIDs, and steroid injections Interventions compared Recommendation Population Adults with shoulderpain for more than 3 months Does not apply to patients with: Including: Traumatic shoulder pain Subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS) Rotator cuff disease (RCD) Other differential diagnoses

We recommend against subacromial decompression surgery Moredetails Strong All or nearly all informed people would likely want this option. Benefits outweigh harms for almost everyone. Weak Most people would likely want this option. Benefits outweigh harms for the majority, but not for everyone. Weak Most people would likely want this option. Benefits outweigh harms for the majority, but not for everyone. Strong All or nearly all informed people would likely want this option. Benefits outweigh harms for almost everyone.

Comparison of benefits and harms

Favours surgery Evidence quality Visual analogue scale (0–10) After 1 year No important difference The panel found that this difference was not important for most patients, because the intervention effects were negligible and/or very imprecise, for example confidence intervals that include both important benefit and harm Favours nonoperative management Evidence presented here shows the comparison between surgery and placebo surgery (diagnostic arthroscopy). Higher quality evidence was available for this comparison than for surgery versus nonoperative management, and the authors believe it is therefore a more useful guide to the effectiveness of surgery. Lower quality evidence on surgery versus nonoperative management is available in MAGIC app, using the link at the bottom of the graphic

No important difference Pain (Mean) High More 2.6 2.9

Risk of Bias No serious concerns Imprecision No serious concerns Indirectness No serious concerns Inconsistency No serious concerns Publication bias No serious concerns Surgery has little or no effect on pain at 1 year A separate review found that the “minimally important difference” for patients would be an improvement of 1.5 on this scale 1.5 MID High GRADE score, because of: GRADE certainty ratings The authors have a lot of confidence that the true effect is similar to the estimated effect The authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect High The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect The true effect is probably markedly different from the estimated effect Moderate Low Very low

Constant score scale (0–100) No important difference Function (Mean) High More 72 69

A separate review found that the “minimally important difference” for patients would be an improvement of 8.3 on this scale 8.3 MID Risk of Bias No serious concerns Imprecision No serious concerns Indirectness No serious concerns Inconsistency No serious concerns Publication bias No serious concerns Surgery has little or no effecton function at 1 year High GRADE score, because of: GRADE certainty ratings The authors have a lot of confidence that the true effect is similar to the estimated effect The authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect High The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect The true effect is probably markedly different from the estimated effect Moderate Low Very low

No important difference EQ-5D scale (-0.59–1) Quality of life (Mean) High More 0.70 0.73

A separate review found that the “minimally important difference” for patients would be an improvement of 0.07 on this scale 0.07 MID Risk of Bias No serious concerns Imprecision No serious concerns Indirectness No serious concerns Inconsistency No serious concerns Publication bias No serious concerns Surgery has little or no effecton quality of life at 1 year High GRADE score, because of: GRADE certainty ratings The authors have a lot of confidence that the true effect is similar to the estimated effect The authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect High The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect The true effect is probably markedly different from the estimated effect Moderate Low Very low

635 Global perceived effect Moderate More Events per 1000 people No important difference 699

Risk of Bias No serious concerns Imprecision Serious Indirectness No serious concerns Inconsistency No serious concerns Publication bias No serious concerns Surgery probably has little or no global perceived effect at 1 year Moderate GRADE score, because of: GRADE certainty ratings The authors have a lot of confidence that the true effect is similar to the estimated effect The authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect High The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect The true effect is probably markedly different from the estimated effect Moderate Low Very low

No important difference At work Low More 859 818 Number of participants working at the time of outcome assessment

Risk of Bias No serious concerns Imprecision Very serious Indirectness No serious concerns Inconsistency No serious concerns Publication bias No serious concerns Surgery may have little or no effect on whether a person is working after 1 year Low GRADE score, because of: GRADE certainty ratings The authors have a lot of confidence that the true effect is similar to the estimated effect The authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect High The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect The true effect is probably markedly different from the estimated effect Moderate Low Very low
Events per 1000 people Within 30 days

6 fewer 0 Serious harms Moderate More 6

Risk of Bias No serious concerns Imprecision No serious concerns Indirectness Serious Inconsistency No serious concerns Publication bias No serious concerns Surgery probably slightly increases risk of serious harms Moderate GRADE score, because of: Data from a well performed registry study of mixed surgical procedures, resulting in indirectevidence for subacromial decompression Observed harms include: Deep vein thrombosis (20.0%) Pulmonary embolism (18.6%) Pneumonia (13.8%) Sepsis and serious infections (9.0%) Bleeding transfusion (8.3%) GRADE certainty ratings The authors have a lot of confidence that the true effect is similar to the estimated effect The authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect High The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect The true effect is probably markedly different from the estimated effect Moderate Low Very low
See patient decision aids
See all outcomes
Recovery time varies from months to years and may include sick leave Day surgery with general anaesthesia and/or nerve block After surgery, 2 weeks off work are typically needed Avoid heavy lifting for one to three weeks, overhead activities for 3 months The panel believes that all or almost all patients would place a high value on avoiding even minimal risk of complications and burden from surgery, if it is not helpful. Values and preferences Key practical issues Surgery Nonoperative management

©BMJ Publishing Group Limited.

Disclaimer: This infographic is not a validated clinical decision aid. This information is provided without any representations, conditions or warranties that it is accurate or up to date. BMJ and its licensors assume no responsibility for any aspect of treatment administered with the aid of this information. Any reliance placed on this information is strictly at the user's own risk. For the full disclaimer wording see BMJ's terms and conditions: https://www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/

Find recommendations, evidence summaries and consultation decision aids for use in your practice
  1. Per Olav Vandvik, methods co-chair, general internist, methodologist1 2,
  2. Tuomas Lähdeoja, orthopedic surgeon3 4,
  3. Clare Ardern, physiotherapist5 6,
  4. Rachelle Buchbinder, rheumatologist, methodologist7,
  5. Jaydeep Moro, orthopaedic surgeon8,
  6. Jens Ivar Brox, consultant in physical medicine9,
  7. Jako Burgers, general practitioner10 11,
  8. Qiukui Hao, geriatrician, methodologist12 13,
  9. Teemu Karjalainen, hand surgeon7,
  10. Michel van den Bekerom, orthopaedic surgeon14,
  11. Julia Noorduyn, physiotherapist14,
  12. Lyubov Lytvyn, patient partnership liaison13,
  13. Reed A C Siemieniuk, general internist, methodologist13,
  14. Alexandra Albin, patient partner15,
  15. Sean Chua Shunjie, patient partner16,
  16. Florian Fisch, patient partner17,
  17. Laurie Proulx, patient partner18,
  18. Gordon Guyatt, general internist, methodologist13,
  19. Thomas Agoritsas, general internist, methodologist19,
  20. Rudolf W Poolman, chair, orthopaedic surgeon14
  1. 1Department of Medicine, Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, Oslo, Norway
  2. 2Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
  3. 3Finnish Center of Evidence based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
  4. 4Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, HUS Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
  5. 5Division of Physiotherapy, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
  6. 6School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
  7. 7Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Institute and Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University
  8. 8Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  9. 9Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Oslo University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway
  10. 10Dutch College of General Practitioners, Utrecht, The Netherlands
  11. 11Care and Public Health Research Institute, Department Family Medicine, Maastricht, The Netherlands
  12. 12Center of Gerontology and Geriatrics (National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics), West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
  13. 13Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
  14. 14Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Joint Research, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  15. 15Society for Participatory Medicine Member, USA
  16. 16MOH Holdings, 1 Maritime Square, Singapore
  17. 17Gryphenhübeliweg 28, 3006 Bern, Switzerland
  18. 18Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, Canada
  19. 19Division General Internal Medicine & Division of Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
  1. Correspondence: R W Poolman rwp{at}jointresearch.org

Abstract

Clinical question Do adults with atraumatic shoulder pain for more than 3 months diagnosed as subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS), also labelled as rotator cuff disease, benefit from subacromial decompression surgery? This guideline builds on to two recent high quality trials of shoulder surgery.

Current practice SAPS is the common diagnosis for shoulder pain with several first line treatment options, including analgesia, exercises, and injections. Surgeons frequently perform arthroscopic subacromial decompression for prolonged symptoms, with guidelines providing conflicting recommendations.

Recommendation The guideline panel makes a strong recommendation against surgery.

How this guideline was created A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines and the GRADE system. The recommendation is based on two linked systematic reviews on (a) the benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery and (b) the minimally important differences for patient reported outcome measures. Recommendations are made actionable for clinicians and their patients through visual overviews. These provide the relative and absolute benefits and harms of surgery in multilayered evidence summaries and decision aids available in MAGIC (www.magicapp.org) to support shared decisions and adaptation.

The evidence Surgery did not provide important improvements in pain, function, or quality of life compared with placebo surgery or other options. Frozen shoulder may be more common with surgery.

Understanding the recommendation The panel concluded that almost all informed patients would choose to avoid surgery because there is no benefit but there are harms and it is burdensome. Subacromial decompression surgery should not be offered to patients with SAPS. However, there is substantial uncertainty in what alternative treatment is best.

Up to a quarter of adults have experienced shoulder pain over the past year, and it represents the third most common musculoskeletal problem.12 About half of those affected will recover completely within six months.3 Pain beyond three months is associated with poorer recovery, disability, and reduced ability to work.3

Subacromial pain is the most common form (up to 70%) of shoulder pain, and it can impair the ability to work or do household tasks.456 Most patients presenting with subacromial pain, without a history of trauma, receive a diagnosis of subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS), shoulder impingement, or rotator cuff disease. Each of these labels describe similar clinical presentations, but there is inconsistency about how they are defined and overlap between these diagnoses. Here, we use the term SAPS (see box 1 for details of its presentation). This recommendation addresses the role of surgery for adults with symptoms lasting more than three months, who approach health professionals for treatment.

Box 1

Details of subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS)

  • Common symptoms—Pain at the upper outer arm when lifting the arm (classically a painful arc through shoulder abduction), difficulty moving the arm (especially with forward flexion, external rotation, and abduction), reduced strength in the arm, and sleep problems due to pain78

  • Key differential diagnoses—Adhesive capsulitis (“frozen shoulder”) and glenohumeral osteoarthritis89

  • Imaging—Patients with SAPS can have degeneration and partial thickness rotator cuff tears or abnormalities in the subacromial bursa on imaging. These imaging findings are also common in people without symptoms10

  • Pathophysiology—Remains poorly understood. Cadaver studies suggested that pain might occur from rotator cuff tendons being caught (“impinging”) between the acromion or coracoacromial ligament and the humerus.11 These studies provided the initial rationale for subacromial decompression surgery

RETURN TO TEXT

This BMJ Rapid Recommendation is in response to two recent trials1213 which found that subacromial decompression surgery provided no benefit over placebo surgery. The recommendation is based on two linked systematic reviews on benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery and minimally important differences in patient reported outcome measures for shoulder pain, function and quality of life.1415 The main infographic provides an overview of the relative and absolute benefits and harms of surgery in standard GRADE format. Box 2 shows all of the articles and evidence linked in this Rapid Recommendation package. Table 2 below shows evidence that has emerged since the publication of this article.

Box 2

Linked articles in this BMJ Rapid Recommendation cluster

  • Vandvik PO, Lähdeoja T, Ardern C, et al. Subacromial decompression surgery for adults with shoulder pain: a clinical practice guideline. BMJ 2019;364:l294

    • Summary of the results from the Rapid Recommendation process

  • Hao Q, Devji T, Zeraatkar D, et al. Minimal important differences for improvement in shoulder condition patient-reported outcomes: a systematic review to inform a BMJ Rapid Recommendation. BMJ Open 2019; doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-02877714

    • Review of minimally important differences in outcomes from shoulder conditions

  • Lähdeoja T, Karjalainen T, Jokihaara J, et al. Subacromial decompression surgery versus conservative management in patients with shoulder pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 2019; doi:10.1136/bjsports-2018-10048615

    • Review and meta-analysis of all available randomised trials that assessed effects of surgery for SAPS

  • Karjalainen TV, Jain NB, Page CM, et al. Subacromial decompression surgery for rotator cuff disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;(1):CD005619. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005619.pub316

    • Updated Cochrane systematic review on subacromial decompression surgery for rotator cuff disease

  • MAGICapp (www.magicapp.org/public/guideline/nBMa0L)

    • Expanded version of the results with multilayered recommendations, evidence summaries, and decision aids for use on all devices (see appendix 3 on bmj.com)

RETURN TO TEXT

Current practice

First line treatment options for SAPS include simple analgesia such as paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), glucocorticoid injections, and exercise therapy.8 Subacromial acromial decompression surgery is a second line treatment option for patients with more longstanding symptoms. Current guidelines provide inconsistent recommendations (table 1). Such surgery includes removal of the subacromial bursa (bursectomy) and removal of bone from the under surface of the acromion (acromioplasty).8 Surgeons initially performed subacromial decompression surgery as an open procedure. It evolved to less invasive keyhole surgery: arthroscopy.

Table 1

Major guideline recommendations on subacromial decompression surgery for subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS)*

View this table:

Despite trials dating back to 199318 and systematic reviews failing to demonstrate benefit from surgery,19 the number of arthroscopies performed has risen dramatically, although there is substantial geographical variation.2021 There were 21 000 procedures performed in NHS hospitals in 2010, which cost approximately £50 million.21

How this recommendation was created

Our international panel included patients with lived experience of shoulder pain and surgery, orthopaedic surgeons, physiotherapists, a rheumatologist, general internists, a general practitioner, epidemiologists, and methodologists. No person had financial conflicts of interest; intellectual and professional conflicts were minimised and managed (see appendix 1 on bmj.com for details of panel members and their competing interests). The panel initially decided on the scope of the recommendation and the outcomes that are most important to patients.

The panel identified the following important outcomes: pain, patient global perceived effect, physical function, participation in work and recreation activities, health related quality of life, development of full-thickness rotator cuff tears, and potential harms from surgery (such as frozen shoulder, death, infection, venous thromboembolism, and anaesthesia related events). This selection was also informed by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) preliminary shoulder trial core domain outcome set.28

To inform the recommendation the panel members requested two systematic reviews addressing the following questions:

  1. What is the smallest change in pain, function and quality of life that patients with shoulder conditions such as SAPS consider important—the minimally important difference—to make surgery worthwhile? Such patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) were measured with a variety of instruments in the trials and are challenging to interpret.

  2. What are the benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery in patients with SAPS, as compared to placebo and nonoperative management strategies?

Parallel teams conducted these systematic reviews.1415 Another team updated a Cochrane systematic review synchronised with this BMJ Rapid Recommendation.16 The panel asked the review team to explore potential subgroup effects for risk of bias in trials and different types of comparisons to surgery, such as exercise therapy.

The panel used this evidence and followed BMJ Rapid Recommendations procedures for creating a trustworthy recommendation. This includes the GRADE approach. The panel met by videoconference to discuss the evidence and formulate a recommendation (see appendix 2 on bmj.com).2930 The panel considered the balance of benefits, harms, and burdens of surgery versus placebo surgery and nonoperative treatments, the certainty of the evidence for each outcome, typical and expected variations in patient values and preferences, as well as feasibility and acceptability (practical issues).23 Recommendations using GRADE can be strong or weak, for or against a course of action.30 The panel made the recommendation from an individual patient’s perspective assuming that all options were available and affordable to the patient. It does not take a public health, societal, or health payer perspective. Healthcare systems can adapt these recommendations by including costs and other key issues of relevance, contextualised to national and local circumstances.23

The evidence

What is the minimum difference in symptoms and function important to patients?

The systematic review of minimally important differences (MIDs) identified 22 original studies of 5562 patients. They reported results for 74 MID estimates judged to be of variable and mostly low credibility.14 The most credible MID estimates were used to help interpret the results of the systematic review, as shown in the infographic.

The panel were, due to credible estimates, confident that patients valued

  • A difference in pain of at least 1.5 units as important (visual analogue scale 0-10)

  • A difference in function of at least 8.3 units as important (constant score 0-100)

The panel were less confident in the difference in health related quality of life reported by patients to be important (EQ 5-D, MID 0.07 units, low credibility median estimate).

What are the benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery?

The linked systematic review and meta-analysis pooled data from seven randomised controlled trials with 1014 participants diagnosed with SAPS.15 In general, the patients included in the trials are representative of patients with SAPS presenting to primary care centres and outpatient clinics (fig 2). Participants were around 49 years (median) and had had symptoms for around two years (median)

Fig 2
Fig 2

Characteristics of participants and trials included in the systematic review of the effects of surgery for subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS)

Planned evaluation of trials at lower risk of bias

The panel planned to focus on evidence at lower risk of bias. Two trials included placebo surgery and were at low risk of bias.1213 At one year after treatment, they showed that surgery did not have meaningful benefit over placebo surgery:

  • High certainty evidence for little or no effect on

    • Pain (mean difference −0.26 (95% confidence interval −0.84 to 0.33), MID 1.5)

    • Function (mean difference 2.8 (−1.4 to 6.9), MID 8.3)

    • Health related quality of life (mean difference −0.03 points (−0.11 to 0.06), MID 0.07)

  • Moderate certainty evidence for little or no global perceived effect (risk ratio 1.10 (0.94 to 1.30))

  • Low certainty evidence for little or no effect on return to work (risk ratio 1.05 (0.89 to 1.23)).

Similar results were seen at six months, two years, and at five year follow-up, with the latter supported by low certainty evidence due to imprecise estimates from unblinded trials.15

Planned evaluation of surgery compared with exercise therapy

This analysis compared subacromial decompression surgery (including postoperative exercise therapy) with exercise therapy alone. Six trials reported such comparisons, and all were at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. Some had imprecise estimates of effect. Compared with exercise therapy, there was no important benefit of surgery on pain, function, quality of life, global perceived effect, and return to work.15

About a third (32%) of all participants included in the trials continued to have more than minor symptoms (such as mild to moderate pain) at one year, irrespective of treatment. The average pain scores in the trials at two years were 1.6 to 3.0 units (0-10 scale), reflecting mild to moderate pain.

Harms

Potential harms from surgery were incompletely reported in the trials. The trials were also underpowered to detect rare events. There were around 12 more frozen shoulders per 1000 patients undergoing subacromial decompression surgery, based on the two placebo controlled trials (low certainty evidence).

Because harms data from randomised trials were anticipated to be so limited, the guideline panel requested the systematic review to include observational studies designed to evaluate harms after subacromial decompression surgery.15 The systematic review assessed 140 publications in full text, of which four reported results from a large prospective cohort study from the United States considered to represent best current evidence on serious harms.101522 This registry study investigated 30-day complications resulting in readmission to hospitals after mixed arthroscopic procedures including subacromial decompression surgery from 2006 to 2013.923

The risk of serious harms after mixed shoulder arthroscopic procedures was 0.5% (95% confidence interval 0.4% to 0.7%) during years 2006-11 and 0.6% (0.5% to 0.7%) during 2011-13. Reported harms included events such as major bleeding, deep infections, serious anaesthetic complications, venous thromboembolism, and peripheral nerve injury. The indirectness caused by inclusion of mixed arthroscopic shoulder procedures in the registry study results in moderate certainty evidence for estimated harms.

Understanding the recommendation

The panel concluded that almost all well informed patients would decline surgery and therefore made a strong recommendation against subacromial decompression surgery. The panel was confident that surgery provides no important benefit on pain, function, quality of life, and global perceived effect informed by moderate to high certainty evidence in a one year timeframe. Surgery also comes with burdens and the risk of harm (see main infographic).

Clinicians should not offer patients subacromial decompression surgery unprompted, and clinicians, public healthcare providers, and others should make efforts to educate the public regarding the ineffectiveness of surgery. Although we did not take costs and resources into account beyond direct costs to patients (such as out-of-pocket costs), surgery cannot be cost effective given the lack of important benefit, potential for harm, and associated costs.

Figure 3 includes the practical issues linked to surgery, compared with physical therapy because this was the key comparison in the trials and a relevant treatment option. This would differ for other treatment options such as analgesia or injection.

Fig 3
Fig 3

Practical issues for surgery and nonoperative management of subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS)

Uncertainty

Clinicians and patients might question what other therapies could be offered to patients diagnosed with SAPS or rotator cuff disease and whether any therapy is effective. Here we recognise the limitation of our BMJ Rapid Recommendations, made to provide guidance on new evidence that might change practice. For guidance on treatment alternatives beyond surgery, we point readers to a clinically focused overview article and to guidelines with a broader scope (table 1).8

The whole area of best management of SAPS is uncertain, as reflected in the following brief summary on available treatment options:

  • Glucocorticoid injections and NSAIDs may provide moderate to small short term benefits on shoulder pain compared with placebo.824

  • Exercise, manual therapy, and electrotherapies are of uncertain benefit to patients compared with watchful waiting, and guidelines vary in their recommendations.2526

  • A holistic approach to care, with appropriate communication including reassurance and education, is likely to benefit patients but is poorly studied.27

Key research questions to inform decision makers and future guidelines include:

  • What are the best strategies to de-implement inefficient and potentially harmful subacromial decompression surgery for SAPS?

  • How can we educate patients and clinicians to understand and adopt evidence, particularly when it goes against accepted beliefs?

Updates to this article

Table 2 shows evidence that has emerged since the publication of this article. As new evidence is published, a group will assess the new evidence and make a judgement on the extent it is expected to alter the recommendation.

Table 2

New evidence which has emerged after initial publication

View this table:

Education into practice

  • What would be your approach to managing subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS), based on the information you have read in this article?

  • How can this article help you explain the new evidence to patients considering surgery for their shoulder pain? How should you respond if patients ask about surgery?

  • What would you tell your colleagues about best practice for managing SAPS?

How patients were involved in the creation of this article

Four people with lived experience of subacromial pain syndrome and shoulder surgery were full panel members. These panel members identified important outcomes and participated in the teleconferences and email discussions on the evidence and the recommendation. They contributed to the identification of practical issues related to the decision to have surgery and met all authorship criteria for the present article. We thank them for their time and contribution.

Footnotes

  • This BMJ Rapid Recommendation article is one of a series that provides clinicians with trustworthy recommendations for potentially practice changing evidence. BMJ Rapid Recommendations represent a collaborative effort between the MAGIC group (http://magicproject.org/) and The BMJ. A summary is offered here and the full version including decision aids is on the MAGICapp (https://app.magicapp.org), for all devices in multilayered formats. Those reading and using these recommendations should consider individual patient circumstances, and their values and preferences and may want to use consultation decision aids in MAGICapp to facilitate shared decision making with patients. We encourage adaptation and contextualisation of our recommendations to local or other contexts. Those considering use or adaptation of content may go to MAGICapp to link or extract its content or contact The BMJ for permission to reuse content in this article.

  • Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interest disclosure form and a detailed, contextualised description of all disclosures is reported in appendix 1 on bmj.com. As with all BMJ Rapid Recommendations, the executive team and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Professional and academic interests are minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions.

  • Funding: The Dutch Orthopaedic Society has provided the MAGIC Foundation with €35 000 to support development of two rapid recommendations for orthopaedic surgery. The society had no role in the guideline development process for this BMJ Rapid Recommendation. The recommendation on shoulder surgery will be adapted into an updated recommendation in their guidelines.

  • Transparency: R Poolman and P O Vandvik affirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the recommendation being reported; that no important aspects of the recommendation have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the recommendation as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.

  • Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed

References

  1. ↵
    1. Bot SD,
    2. van der Waal JM,
    3. Terwee CB,
    4. et al
    . Incidence and prevalence of complaints of the neck and upper extremity in general practice. Ann Rheum Dis2005;64:118-23. doi:10.1136/ard.2003.019349doi:10.1136/ard.2003.019349 pmid:15608309
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Luime JJ,
    2. Koes BW,
    3. Hendriksen IJ,
    4. et al
    . Prevalence and incidence of shoulder pain in the general population; a systematic review. Scand J Rheumatol2004;33:73-81. doi:10.1080/03009740310004667 pmid:15163107
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Bruls VE,
    2. Bastiaenen CH,
    3. de Bie RA
    . Prognostic factors of complaints of arm, neck, and/or shoulder: a systematic review of prospective cohort studies. Pain2015;156:765-88. doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000117 pmid:25659066
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Mitchell C,
    2. Adebajo A,
    3. Hay E,
    4. Carr A
    . Shoulder pain: diagnosis and management in primary care. BMJ2005;331:1124-8. doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7525.1124 pmid:16282408
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Harkness EF,
    2. Macfarlane GJ,
    3. Nahit ES,
    4. Silman AJ,
    5. McBeth J
    . Mechanical and psychosocial factors predict new onset shoulder pain: a prospective cohort study of newly employed workers. Occup Environ Med2003;60:850-7. doi:10.1136/oem.60.11.850 pmid:14573715
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. van der Windt DA,
    2. Thomas E,
    3. Pope DP,
    4. et al
    . Occupational risk factors for shoulder pain: a systematic review. Occup Environ Med2000;57:433-42. doi:10.1136/oem.57.7.433 pmid:10854494
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Hermans J,
    2. Luime JJ,
    3. Meuffels DE,
    4. Reijman M,
    5. Simel DL,
    6. Bierma-Zeinstra SM
    . Does this patient with shoulder pain have rotator cuff disease?: The Rational Clinical Examination systematic review. JAMA2013;310:837-47. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.276187 pmid:23982370
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    1. Whittle S,
    2. Buchbinder R
    . In the clinic. Rotator cuff disease. Ann Intern Med2015;162:ITC1-15. doi:10.7326/AITC201501060 pmid:25560729
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Brox JI
    . Regional musculoskeletal conditions: shoulder pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol2003;17:33-56. doi:10.1016/S1521-6942(02)00101-8 pmid:12659820
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Gill TK,
    2. Shanahan EM,
    3. Allison D,
    4. Alcorn D,
    5. Hill CL
    . Prevalence of abnormalities on shoulder MRI in symptomatic and asymptomatic older adults. Int J Rheum Dis2014;17:863-71. doi:10.1111/1756-185X.12476 pmid:25294682
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Neer CS 2nd.
    . Anterior acromioplasty for the chronic impingement syndrome in the shoulder: a preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Am1972;54:41-50. doi:10.2106/00004623-197254010-00003 pmid:5054450
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Paavola M,
    2. Malmivaara A,
    3. Taimela S,
    4. et al.,
    5. Finnish Subacromial Impingement Arthroscopy Controlled Trial (FIMPACT) Investigators
    . Subacromial decompression versus diagnostic arthroscopy for shoulder impingement: randomised, placebo surgery controlled clinical trial. BMJ2018;362:k2860. doi:10.1136/bmj.k2860 pmid:30026230
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Beard DJ,
    2. Rees JL,
    3. Cook JA,
    4. et al.,
    5. CSAW Study Group
    . Arthroscopic subacromial decompression for subacromial shoulder pain (CSAW): a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group, randomised surgical trial. Lancet2018;391:329-38. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32457-1 pmid:29169668
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Hao Q,
    2. Devji T,
    3. Zeraatkar D,
    4. et al
    . Minimal important differences for improvement in shoulder condition patient-reported outcomes: a systematic review to inform a BMJ Rapid Recommendation.BMJ Open2019; doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028777.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. ↵
    1. Lähdeoja T,
    2. Karjalainen T,
    3. Jokihaara J,
    4. et al.
    Subacromial decompression surgery versus conservative management in patients with shoulder pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med2019; doi:10.1136/bjsports-2018-100486 .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Karjalainen TV,
    2. Jain NB,
    3. Page CM,
    4. et al.
    Subacromial decompression surgery for rotator cuff disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2019;(1):CD005619. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005619.pub3.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Diercks R,
    2. Bron C,
    3. Dorrestijn O,
    4. et al.,
    5. Dutch Orthopaedic Association
    . Guideline for diagnosis and treatment of subacromial pain syndrome: a multidisciplinary review by the Dutch Orthopaedic Association. Acta Orthop2014;85:314-22. doi:10.3109/17453674.2014.920991 pmid:24847788
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. ↵
    1. Brox JI,
    2. Staff PH,
    3. Ljunggren AE,
    4. Brevik JI
    . Arthroscopic surgery compared with supervised exercises in patients with rotator cuff disease (stage II impingement syndrome). BMJ1993;307:899-903. doi:10.1136/bmj.307.6909.899 pmid:8241852
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Coghlan JA,
    2. Buchbinder R,
    3. Green S,
    4. Johnston RV,
    5. Bell SN
    . Surgery for rotator cuff disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2008;(1):CD005619.pmid:18254085
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Vitale MA,
    2. Arons RR,
    3. Hurwitz S,
    4. Ahmad CS,
    5. Levine WN
    . The rising incidence of acromioplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2010;92:1842-50. doi:10.2106/JBJS.I.01003 pmid:20686058
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Judge A,
    2. Murphy RJ,
    3. Maxwell R,
    4. Arden NK,
    5. Carr AJ
    . Temporal trends and geographical variation in the use of subacromial decompression and rotator cuff repair of the shoulder in England. Bone Joint J2014;96-B:70-4. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.96B1.32556 pmid:24395314
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Shields E,
    2. Thirukumaran C,
    3. Thorsness R,
    4. Noyes K,
    5. Voloshin I
    . An analysis of adult patient risk factors and complications within 30 days after arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Arthroscopy2015;31:807-15. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2014.12.011 pmid:25661861
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Alonso-Coello P,
    2. Oxman AD,
    3. Moberg J,
    4. et al.,
    5. GRADE Working Group
    . GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines. BMJ2016;353:i2089. doi:10.1136/bmj.i2089 pmid:27365494
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Arroll B,
    2. Goodyear-Smith F
    . Corticosteroid injections for painful shoulder: a meta-analysis. Br J Gen Pract2005;55:224-8.pmid:15808040
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Page MJ,
    2. Green S,
    3. McBain B,
    4. et al
    . Manual therapy and exercise for rotator cuff disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2016;(6):CD012224.pmid:27283590
  26. ↵
    1. Page MJ,
    2. Green S,
    3. Mrocki MA,
    4. et al
    . Electrotherapy modalities for rotator cuff disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2016;(6):CD012225.pmid:27283591
  27. ↵
    1. Lewis J,
    2. O’Sullivan P
    . Is it time to reframe how we care for people with non-traumatic musculoskeletal pain?Br J Sports Med2018;52:1543-4. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2018-099198 pmid:29941618
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Buchbinder R,
    2. Page MJ,
    3. Huang H,
    4. et al.,
    5. Shoulder Core Outcome Set Special Interest Group
    . A preliminary core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders: a report from the OMERACT 2016 Shoulder Core Outcome Set Special Interest Group. J Rheumatol2017;44:1880-3. doi:10.3899/jrheum.161123 pmid:28089972
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Siemieniuk RA,
    2. Agoritsas T,
    3. Macdonald H,
    4. Guyatt GH,
    5. Brandt L,
    6. Vandvik PO
    . Introduction to BMJ Rapid Recommendations. BMJ2016;354:i5191. doi:10.1136/bmj.i5191 pmid:27680768
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Guyatt GH,
    2. Oxman AD,
    3. Vist GE,
    4. et al.,
    5. GRADE Working Group
    . GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ2008;336:924-6. doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD pmid:18436948
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
Back to top