ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2025
A comparative study of diagnostic performance in shoulder pain: clinical tests versus ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: Shoulder pain is common and often evaluated with physical examination tests, yet their diagnostic accuracy remains controversial. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to determine the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) rates of clinical test results in patients with shoulder pain, based on ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings as reference diagnostic methods. Materials and methods: The study included 78 patients who had complaints of shoulder pain. All patients underwent physical examinations and specific clinical tests (such as Neer and Jobe tests) to reveal shoulder pathologies, and US and MRI evaluations were performed. Results: The sensitivity of clinical examination tests for subacromial impingement syndrome, biceps tendinitis and rupture, and infraspinatus tendinitis was higher than US. The specificity of tests for biceps rupture, rotator cuff rupture, infraspinatus and subscapularis tendinitis was higher compared with US. Subacromial impingement tests also showed higher sensitivity compared to MRI. The specificity of tests for acromioclavicular arthritis, biceps rupture, rotator cuff rupture, infraspinatus tendinitis was higher than MRI. Comparison of diagnostic performance with US was significant for subacromial impingement syndrome, acromioclavicular arthritis, biceps tendinitis and rupture, rotator cuff rupture and subscapularis tendinitis (p values; 0.003, 0.003, 0.000, 0.026, 0.000, 0.000, respectively). In contrast, comparison with MRI was significant only for subacromial impingement syndrome (p = 0.026). Conclusion: Clinical tests have an important place in practice when examining shoulder lesions with their high specificity and sensitivity. Although US reveals many shoulder lesions that cannot be detected by clinical tests or support our examination, MRI maintains its importance in shoulder imaging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.