title: Protocol for determining the diagnostic validity of physical examination maneuvers for shoulder pathology.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Shoulder complaints are the third most common musculoskeletal problem in the general population. There are an abundance of physical examination maneuvers for diagnosing shoulder pathology. The validity of these maneuvers has not been adequately addressed. We propose a large Phase III study to investigate the accuracy of these tests in an orthopaedic setting.
  
  
  METHODS
  We will recruit consecutive new shoulder patients who are referred to two tertiary orthopaedic clinics. We will select which physical examination tests to include using a modified Delphi process. The physician will take a thorough history from the patient and indicate their certainty about each possible diagnosis (certain the diagnosis is absent, present or requires further testing). The clinician will only perform the physical examination maneuvers for diagnoses where uncertainty remains. We will consider arthroscopy the reference standard for patients who undergo surgery within 8 months of physical examination and magnetic resonance imaging with arthrogram for patients who do not. We will calculate the sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative likelihood ratios and investigate whether combinations of the top tests provide stronger predictions of the presence or absence of disease.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There are several considerations when performing a diagnostic study to ensure that the results are applicable in a clinical setting. These include, 1) including a representative sample, 2) selecting an appropriate reference standard, 3) avoiding verification bias, 4) blinding the interpreters of the physical examination tests to the interpretation of the gold standard and, 5) blinding the interpreters of the gold standard to the interpretation of the physical examination tests. The results of this study will inform clinicians of which tests, or combination of tests, successfully reduce diagnostic uncertainty, which tests are misleading and how physical examination may affect the magnitude of the confidence the clinician feels about their diagnosis. The results of this study may reduce the number of costly and invasive imaging studies (MRI, CT or arthrography) that are requisitioned when uncertainty about diagnosis remains following history and physical exam. We also hope to reduce the variability between specialists in which maneuvers are used during physical examination and how they are used, all of which will assist in improving consistency of care between centres.
authors: Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Science, Western University, London, Canada.
authors: Lyndsay
authors: L
authors: Somerville
authors: Dianne
authors: D
authors: Bryant
authors: Kevin
authors: K
authors: Willits
authors: Andrew
authors: A
authors: Johnson
mesh_terms: D001182:Arthroscopy; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D003697:Delphi Technique; D006801:Humans; D016013:Likelihood Functions; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging; D009140:Musculoskeletal Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000503:physiopathology; D009864:Ontario; D010808:Physical Examination / Q000592:standards; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D012015:Reference Standards; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012107:Research Design; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D012782:Shoulder / Q000503:physiopathology*; D062606:Tertiary Care Centers; D035501:Uncertainty
references: Br J Sports Med. 2008 Feb;42(2):80-92; discussion 92
references: 17720798
references: JAMA. 2004 Oct 27;292(16):1989-99
references: 15507585
references: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Oct;439:109-15
references: 16205148
references: Phys Ther Sport. 2008 Nov;9(4):167-76
references: 19083717
references: Acad Emerg Med. 1996 Sep;3(9):895-900
references: 8870764
references: Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2006 Jan;85(1):53-60
references: 16357549
references: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992 May;74(3):414-5
references: 1587891
references: Radiology. 1991 May;179(2):519-22
references: 2014303
references: Radiology. 1991 Apr;179(1):241-6
references: 2006284
references: J Fam Pract. 2002 Jul;51(7):605-11
references: 12160496
references: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000 Dec;48(12):1633-7
references: 11129754
references: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006 Sep-Oct;15(5):580-5
references: 16979053
references: Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(29):iii, 1-166
references: 14567906
references: Am J Sports Med. 2011 Apr;39(4):710-4
references: 21310940
references: Arthroscopy. 2004 Nov;20(9):959-63
references: 15525929
references: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001 May-Jun;10(3):199-203
references: 11408898
references: Ann Intern Med. 2004 Feb 3;140(3):189-202
references: 14757617
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000 Apr;174(4):1107-14
references: 10749261
references: BMJ. 2002 Mar 2;324(7336):539-41
references: 11872558
references: Arthroscopy. 1998 Nov-Dec;14(8):789-96
references: 9848587
references: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999 Jan-Feb;8(1):42-5
references: 10077795
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995 Jan;77(1):10-5
references: 7822341
references: Am J Sports Med. 2004 Apr-May;32(3):655-61
references: 15090381