Background
Previous biomarker reviews
Methods
Literature search
Primary screen-selection of articles
Secondary screen-quality assessment and data extraction
Research synthesis
Results
Secondary screen-quality assessment overview
Data extraction from sufficient quality studies
Are there quantitative imaging biomarkers associated with the presence of neck and shoulder MSDs?
MSD Classification and diagnosis | Author(s) | Major results (case-control comparison) | Conclusion |
---|---|---|---|
Neck disorders and symptoms | |||
Neck pain | Dibai Filho (2012) [37] | Skin temperature Skin temperature (L & R trapezius), difference btwn sides (thermal asymmetry), NS. | No |
Neck pain | Elliott (2008) [46] | Fat index indicating fatty infiltration (relative fat) Fat index: cases < controls, p < 0.001 in all muscles. | Yes ↓ fat index in cases in all neck extensor muscles (see Additional file 7). |
Neck pain | Falla (2004) [38] | Subcutaneous tissue thickness over SCM, AS SCM subcutaneous tissue thickness (L & R): NS cases vs. controls AS subcutaneous tissue thickness (L & R): NS cases vs. controls | No |
Neck pain | Fernández-de-las-Peñas (2008) [47] | Multifidus CSA, muscle shape ratio CSA: ANOVA, group (p < 0.001) & cervical level (p < 0.001) effects. No interactions. Cases < controls at C3, C4, C5 (p < 0.001) & at C6 (p < 0.01). Muscle shape ratio: ANOVA, group (p < 0.001) & cervical level (p < 0.001) effects. Significant interactions btwn group & level (p = 0.01). Cases > controls at C3 (p < 0.001) & C6 (p < 0.01). | Yes ↓ multifidus CSA in cases at C3, C4, C5, C6 ↑ muscle shape ratio in cases at C3, C6 |
Neck pain | Javanshir (2011) [48] | Lco CSA, anterior-posterior dimension (APD), lateral dimension (LD), and shape ratio (LD/APD) Lco CSA: cases < controls, p < 0.001. Lco APD: cases < controls, p < 0.01. Lco LD, shape ratio, NS cases vs. controls. | Yes ↓ Lco CSA in cases ↓ Lco APD in cases |
Neck pain | Karimi (2016) [53] | Dorsal neck muscle thickness change w. 50% & 100% shoulder MVC in 6 directions Dorsal neck muscle thickness: During MVC: significant interaction of group x muscle, p = 0.008. NS, cases vs. controls group x direction; group x force. | Yes Dorsal neck muscle thickness group x muscle effect |
Neck pain | Jesus-Moraleida (2011) [49] | Lco thickness, SCM thickness, change of thickness during test/thickness during rest = proportion of muscle recruitment Lco thickness increase throughout all CCFT phases: cases < controls (p < 0.001). SCM thickness increase throughout all CCFT phases: NS, cases vs. controls. Lco recruitment: cases < controls, phase 4 (p = 0.02), phase 5 (p = 0.004), NS other phases. SCM recruitment: NS, cases vs. controls. | Yes ↓ Lco thickness increase throughout all CCFT phases in cases ↓ Lco recruitment, phases 4 & 5 |
Neck pain | Park (2013) [50] | Mean difference in the bilateral semispinalis capitis muscle thickness Mean difference in the bilateral semispinalis capitis thickness: cases > controls, p < 0.05. Within cases mean difference in the bilateral semispinalis capitis thickness: painful side < asymptomatic side, p < 0.05. | Yes ↑ mean difference in the bilateral semispinalis capitis thickness in cases ↓ mean difference in the bilateral semispinalis capitis thickness in painful side |
Neck pain | Rahnama (2015) [52] | Multifidus muscle thickness change w. shoulder MVC in 6 directions Multifidus muscle thickness: baseline: NS, cases vs. controls; During MVC: significant interaction of group x force, controls > cases (p = 0.03). NS, cases vs. controls group x direction; 3- & 4-way interactions involving group. | Yes ↓ multifidus muscle thickness increase in cases during isometric MVC |
Neck pain | Sheard (2012) [51] | Differences in water relaxation values (T2 relaxation) quantified from scans before and after exercise were calculated (T2 shift) as a measure of SA muscle activity T2 shift: significant effect for level (p = .03) and significant group × level interaction (p = .04) but no significant main effect for group (p = .59). Post hoc T2 shift: cases > controls at the T6 level (P = .02) only. | Yes ↑ T2 shift at T6 in cases |
Shoulder disorders and symptoms | |||
Degenerative rotator cuff lesion | Biberthaler (2003) [54] | Mean functional capillary density, mean capillary diameterMean functional capillary density: lesion < control tissue (p < 0.05). Mean capillary diameter: NS, lesion vs. control tissue (p > 0.05). | Yes ↓ mean functional capillary density in lesion tissue |
Rotator cuff tear (full thickness) | Chang (2014) [56] | Biceps long tendon (BLT) width, thickness, flattening ratio (width/thickness), cross-sectional area, echogenicity ratio BLT width, echogenicity ratio: NS, cases vs. controls BLT thickness: cases > controls, p < 0.01. BLT flattening ratio: cases < controls, p < 0.01. BLT cross-sectional area: cases > controls, p < 0.01. | Yes ↑ BLT thickness in cases ↓ BLT flattening ratio in cases ↑ BLT cross-sectional area in cases |
Rotator cuff tear | Choo (2014) [57] | Rotator cable thickness, width Rotator cable thickness: difference among 4 groups (see shoulder tendinosis - Choo), p < 0.001; post-hoc analysis – full-thickness tear > normal, p < 0.001. Rotator cable width: difference among 4 groups (see shoulder tendinosis - Choo), p < 0.001; post-hoc analysis – full-thickness tear > normal, p < 0.001; partial-thickness tear > normala. | Yes ↑ rotator cable thickness in full-thickness tears ↑ rotator cable width in full-thickness tears Perhaps ↑ rotator cable width in partial-thickness tears |
Rotator cuff tear | Funakoshi (2010) [55] | Vascularity in 4 ROIs: articular & bursal sides of supraspinatus tendon, medial & lateral sides of bursa Non-injected side: cases (RCT) < controls, p < 0.0001, in articular & bursal side of the supraspinatus tendon. Injected side: cases (contralateral to RCT) < controls, p < 0.0001, in articular & bursal side of the supraspinatus tendon. Cases vs. controls, NS, in medial and lateral side of bursa. | Perhaps ↓ vascularity in articular & bursal sides of supraspinatus in non-injected (rotator cuff tear) side in cases, but may be attributed to age. ↓ vascularity in articular & bursal sides of supraspinatus in injected (rotator cuff intact) side in cases, but may be attributed to age. |
Rotator cuff tear | Hirano (2006) [39] | Full vs. partial rotator cuff tear, rotator cuff tear length, amount of subacrominal-subdeltoid bursal fluid Proportion of full & partial tears, NS. Proportion in categorical size of tears, NS. amount of subacrominal-subdeltoid bursal fluid, NS . | No |
Rotator cuff tear | Karthikeyan (2015) [58] | Total blood flow in 4 supraspinatus zones, in anteromedial zone, in posteromedial zone Total blood flow in 4 supraspinatus zones: cases (including shoulder impingement – see below) < controls, p = 0.001. Anteromedial supraspinatus zone: full-thickness tears < controls, p = 0.02; partial-thickness tears vs. controls, NS. Posteromedial supraspinatus zone: full-thickness tears < controls, p = 0.04; partial-thickness tears vs. controls, NS. | Yes ↓ supraspinatus blood flow in cases ↓ anteromedial supraspinatus blood flow in full-thickness tears ↓ posteromedial supraspinatus blood flow in full-thickness tears |
Rotator cuff tear (full-thickness) | Keener (2015) [35] | Baseline rotator cuff tear width; Width enlargement (defined as ≥ 5 mm compared with that at baseline) percentage Baseline rotator cuff tear width: rotator cuff tear with anterior supraspinatus cable disruption > rotator cuff tear with anterior supraspinatus cable intact, p < 0.0001. Width enlargement percentage: NS, rotator cuff tear with anterior supraspinatus cable disruption vs. rotator cuff tear with anterior supraspinatus cable intact . | Yes ↑ baseline rotator cuff tear width with anterior supraspinatus cable disruption. |
Rotator cuff tear | Mall (2010) [33] | Rotator cuff tear length, tear width, tear area, rate of substantial tear progression (transformation of a partial-thickness tear into a full-thickness tear or a size increase of > 5 mm in either the width or the length of a full thickness tear compared with that at the time of enrollment) Time of enrollment: full-thickness tear width: symptomatic > asymptomatic, p = 0.02; tear length, tear area, NS. Change between visit 1 & visit 2 (see paper for definitions): Shoulder remained asymptomatic: NS, tear length, width, area. Shoulder became symptomatic: tear length: visit 2 > visit 1, p = 0.008. tear width: visit 2 > visit 1, p = 0.01 tear area: visit 2 > visit 1, p = 0.006. Rate of substantial tear progression: symptomatic > asymptomatic, p < 0.01 | Yes ↑ full-thickness tear width at enrollment in those who later became symptomatic in asymptomatic shoulder. ↑ tear length, width, & area at visit 2 vs. at visit 1 in those who became symptomatic in asymptomatic shoulder. ↑ rate substantial tear progression in in those who became symptomatic in asymptomatic shoulder. |
Rotator cuff tear | Moosmayer (2013) [36] | Rotator cuff tear size in anteroposterior plane, in mediolateral plane, tear size increase in anteroposterior plane, in mediolateral plane. Rotator cuff tear size in anteroposterior plane: baseline: NS, symptomatic vs. asymptomatic; 3-year follow-up: symptomatic > asymptomatic, p = 0.02 Rotator cuff tear size in mediolateral plane: baseline: NS, symptomatic vs. asymptomatic; 3-year follow-up: NS, symptomatic vs. asymptomatic. Tear size increase in anteroposterior plane: NS, symptomatic vs. asymptomatic. Tear size increase in mediolateral plane: NS, symptomatic vs. asymptomatic. | Yes ↑ rotator cuff tear size in anteroposterior plane at follow-up in tears that became symptomatic |
Rotator cuff tear (partial & full) or rotator cuff disease | Keener (2015) [34] | Rotator cuff tear enlargement (see paper for definition) Tear enlargement in 49%; median time to enlargement = 2.8 yrs. tear enlargement: assoc. w. final tear type, p < 0.05: full vs. control, HR = 4.17; partial vs. control, HR = 2.73; full vs. partial, HR = 1.53 (all p < 0.05, no CI given). New shoulder pain in 46%; median time to pain = 2.6 yrs. shoulder pain assoc. w. final tear type, p < 0.05. Assoc. w. tear enlargement, HR = 1.66, p < 0.05. 63% became painful before or at tear enlargement; 22% became painful later. | Yes ↑ risk tear enlargement in full-tears vs. controls, in partial tears vs controls, in full-tears vs. partial tears. ↑ risk new shoulder pain w. tear enlargement. |
Rotator cuff tear | Terabayashi (2014) [59] | Difference in blood flow peak systolic velocity (PSV), resistance index (RI) between sides Difference between sides in PSV in BA: NS, in any group. Difference between sides in PSV in AHCA: affected > unaffected side in rotator cuff tear with night pain, p < 0.001. NS, other groups. Difference between sides in RI in BA: NS, in any group. Difference between sides in RI in AHCA: affected < unaffected side in rotator cuff tear with night pain, p < 0.01. | Yes ↑ PSV in AHCA in affected vs unaffected side in rotator cuff tear with night pain. ↓ RI in AHCA in affected vs unaffected side in rotator cuff tear with night pain. |
Supraspinatus tendinopathy | Arend (2014) [63] | Maximal supraspinatus tendon thickness (MSTT) MSTT: cases > controls, p < 0.05 | Yes ↑ MSTT in cases |
Rotator cuff tendinitis | Cay (2012) [60] | Subacromial distance, humeral head diameter, Glenoid APD, glenoid articular surface diameter Sagittal subacromial distance: cases < controls, p < 0.001 humeral head diameter, glenoid APD, axial glenoid/humerus, and axial glenoid minus humerus, NS in cases vs controls. coronal diameter of humerus: cases < controls, p = 0.02. coronal glenoid/humerus, coronal glenoid minus humerus: NS in cases vs controls. | Yes ↓ sagittal subacromial distance in cases ↓ coronal diameter of humerus in cases |
Rotator cuff tendinosis | Choo (2014) [57] | Rotator cable thickness, width Rotator cable thickness: difference among 4 groups (see rotator cuff tear - Choo), p < 0.001; post-hoc analysis – NS, tendinosis vs controls. Rotator cable width: difference among 4 groups (see rotator cuff tear - Choo), p < 0.001; post-hoc analysis – tendinosis > normal, p < 0.05a. | Perhaps ↑ rotator cable width in tendinosis |
Rotator cuff tendinitis | Rechardt (2010) [61] | Carotid artery intima-media thickness Carotid artery imtima-media thickness: NS, in males and females. | No |
Shoulder tendinopathy | Joensen (2009) [62] | Supraspinatus tendon thickness Tendon thickness: symptomatic side > asymptomatic side, p < 0.01. | Yes ↑ tendon thickness in symptomatic side |
Frozen shoulder (Adhesive capsulitis) | Li (2011) [64] | CHL thickness CHL thickness: cases > controls, p < 0.001. | Yes ↑ CHL thickness in cases |
Frozen shoulder (Adhesive capsulitis) | Michelin (2013) [67] | Joint capsule thickness Joint capsule thickness: cases > controls, p < 0.0001 | Yes ↑ joint capsule thickness in cases |
Frozen shoulder (Adhesive capsulitis) | Song (2011) [65] | Joint capsule thickness in the axillary recess, enhancing portion of the axillary recess thickness, rotator interval thickness Axillary recess: Joint capsule thickness: cases > controls, p < 0.001. Axillary recess enhancing portion thickness: cases > controls, p < 0.001. Rotator interval Enhancing portion thickness cases > controls, p < 0.001. | Yes ↑ axillary recess joint capsule thickness in cases ↑ Axillary recess enhancing portion thickness in cases ↑ Rotator interval Enhancing portion thickness in cases |
Frozen shoulder (Adhesive capsulitis | Zhao (2012) [66] | CHL thickness, articular capsule thickness CHL thickness: cases > controls, p < 0.001 . articular capsule thickness: cases > controls, p < 0.05. | Yes ↑ CHL thickness in cases ↑ articular capsule thickness in cases |
Shoulder impingement syndrome | Daghir (2011) [71] | Subacromial-subdeltoid bursal thickness Greatest thickness in any view: NS cases vs. controls. Thickness in shortaxis supraspinatus view: cases > controls, p = 0.0009. Thickness in long-axis supraspinatus view: NS cases vs. controls.Thickness in long-axis subscapularis view: NS cases vs. controls. | Yes ↑ subacromial-subdeltoid bursal thickness in cases on shortaxis supraspinatus view |
Shoulder impingement syndrome | Hébert (2003) [68] | AHD Cases vs. contralateral control: Flexion: main effect of group, p < 0.01, and no interaction with position. Post hoc comparisons: cases < controls at 70, 90, 110 & 130 degrees, p < 0.01. Abduction: main effect of group, p < 0.01, no interaction with position. Post hoc comparisons: cases < controls at 80, 90, p < 0.05 and 110 degrees, p < 0.01. Cases vs. contralateral control vs. asymptomatic controls: Flexion - main effect of group, p < 0.0001, (position effect, p < 0.0001) interaction with position, p = 0.01. Post hoc comparisons: cases < asymptomatic controls at 90 & 110 degrees, p < 0.01. NS contralateral control vs asymptomatic controls, all positions. Abduction - main effect of group, p = 0.052. Post hoc comparisons: cases < asymptomatic controls at 90 & 110 degrees, p < 0.01. NS contralateral control vs asymptomatic controls, all positions. | Yes ↓ AHD in cases at 70, 90, 110, 130 degrees flexion vs. contralateral control ↓ AHD in cases at 80, 90, 110 degrees abduction vs. contralateral control ↓ AHD in cases at 90, 110 degrees flexion vs. asymptomatic controls ↓ AHD in cases at in 90, 110 degrees abduction vs. asymptomatic controls |
Shoulder impingement syndrome | Karthikeyan (2015) [58] | Total blood flow in 4 supraspinatus zones, in anteromedial zone, in posteromedial zone Total blood flow in 4 supraspinatus zones: cases (including rotator cuff tears – see above) < controls, p = 0.001. Anteromedial supraspinatus zone: shoulder impingement < controls, p = 0.01. Posteromedial supraspinatus zone: shoulder impingement < controls, p = 0.03. | Yes ↓ supraspinatus blood flow in cases ↓ anteromedial supraspinatus blood flow in cases ↓ posteromedial supraspinatus blood flow in cases |
Shoulder impingement syndrome | Leong (2012) [69] | AHD, supraspinatus tendon thickness AHD: NS group effect, p = 0.08 Supraspinatus tendon thickness: group effect, p = 0.002, post-hoc analysis: control volleyball players > controls, p < 0.001; cases > controls: p = 0.02; NS, control volleyball players vs. cases. | Yes ↑ supraspinatus tendon thickness in cases vs non-volleyball player controls |
Shoulder impingement syndrome | Park (2007) [70] | Difference in mean skin temperature btwn sh sides in 5 ROIs Difference in mean skin temperature btwn sh sides anteromedial ROI: cases > controls, p = 0.004. anterolateral: cases > controls, p = 0.001. posteromedial: cases > controls, p = 0.013. posterolateral: cases > controls, p = 0.030. lateral: cases > controls, p = 0.039. | Yes ↑ difference in mean skin temperature btwn sides in all 5 ROIs in cases |
Shoulder pain w. rotator cuff disease (multiple diagnoses) | Kalra (2010) [40] | AHD No group effects at rest (p = 0.43) or 45 degrees abduction (p = 0.84). No interaction between group and posture. | No |
Shoulder pain | O’Sullivan (2012) [41] | Trapezius muscle thickness % change in thickness during contraction vs. rest: NS btwn cases & controls in any of the 4 trapezius regions, at 90 degrees or 120 degrees abduction. Muscle thickness difference between sides at rest or during contractions in cases: NS in any of the 4 trapezius regions, at 0, 90, or 120 degrees abduction. | No |
Shoulder pain | Rechardt (2010) [61] | Carotid artery intima-media thickness Carotid imtima-media thickness, NS in males and females. For each standard deviation increase in carotid IMT, risk of unilateral or bilateral sh pain, OR = 1.4 (95% CI 1.0–1.9) for males 60 + . | Perhaps ↑ carotid artery intima-media thickness increases odds of shoulder pain in males 60+ |
Shoulder pain (internal impingement pain) | Tuite (2007) [72] | Labral length, thick-capsule labrum length, posterior recess angle Labral length: cases > controls, p = 0.001. Thick-capsule labrum length: cases > controls, p < 0.001. Posterior recess angle: cases > controls, p = 0.002. MR arthrogram: greater (dichotomized) glenohumeral internal rotation deficit (GIRD): labral length, thick-capsule labrum length, posterior recess angle, NS. | Yes ↑ labral length in cases ↑ thick capsule labral length in cases ↑ posterior recess angle in cases |
Neck/shoulder disorders and symptoms | |||
Neck/shoulder pain | Hallman (2011) [80] | Muscle blood flow (MBF) During HGT: MBF cases < controls (p = 0.02 - ipsi; p = 0.04 - contra). After HGT: MBF cases < controls (p = 0.001 - ipsi; p = 0.003 - contra). During CPT: increase in MBF cases < controls (p = 0.04 - ipsi); NS, contra. After CPT: increase in MBF cases < controls (p < 0.05 - ipsi); NS, contra. | Yes ↓ MBF in cases during & after HGT in ipsi- and contralateral sides. ↓ increase in MBF during and after CPT in ipsilateral side. |
Neck/shoulder pain | Nilsen (2007) [42] | Finger blood flow Finger blood flow: baseline, NS. Response to stressful task: group x time (baseline, 0–10 min, 50–60 min) interaction, p = 0.02. Post-hoc comparison: controls vs. cases: p = 0.35. | No |
Neck/shoulder pain | Shiro (2012) [81] | ΔOHb, ΔHHb, ΔTHb from baseline ΔO2Hb: cases < controls during Relax 3 (p < 0.01) & recovery (p < 0.05). ΔHHb: NS, cases vs. controls. ΔTHb: cases < controls during Relax 2 & Relax 3 in R trapezius (p < 0.05); cases < controls: each Relax & recovery in L trapezius (all p < 0.05, except Relax 2 & Relax 3, p < 0.001). | Yes ↓ ΔO2Hb in cases during Relax 3 & recovery. ↓ ΔTHb in cases during Relax 2 & Relax 3 in R trapezius; during each Relax & recovery in L trapezius |
Neck/shoulder pain | Strøm (2009) [43] | Muscle blood flow At start of work task: cases vs controls, NS difference in blood flow increase in either active or contralateral trapezius. Blood flow during 15 min of recovery in active & contralateral trapezius: cases > controls (p = 0.05). | No |
Neck/shoulder pain | Takiguchi (2010) [79] | Minimal & maximal standardized uptake values (SUV) of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose (18F–FDG) Trapezius: mean SUVmax, mean SUVmin: cases < controls, p < 0.0001. Presence/absence of neck/shoulder pain and mean SUVmax (R2 = 0.16, p < 0.0001), and for SUVmin(R2 = 0.26, p < 0.0001), after adjusting for age, gender, smoking status, and diabetes. Gluteus maximus: mean SUVmax, mean SUVmin: NS, cases vs. controls mean. Presence/absence of neck/shoulder pain and mean SUVmax or SUVmin, NS. | Yes |
Cervicobrachial pain syndrome | Larsson (1998) [114] | Muscle blood flow Unilateral pain patients: muscle blood flow: painful < asymptomatic side, p = 0.01; painful < control, p = 0.0009. | Yes ↓ blood flow in painful side in unilateral cases ↓ blood flow in cases |
Trapezius myalgia | Acero (1999) [74] | Relative blood volume ANOVA - main effect for group, case < control, during 61–120 s of cold pressor stimulation, p = 0.04. All other time points group NS. | Yes ↓ relative blood volume in cases during 61–120 s of cold pressor stimulation. |
Trapezius myalgia | Andersen (2010) [44] | ΔOHb, ΔHHb, ΔTHb from baseline ANOVA - main effect of time for all 3ΔxHb (p < 0.0001), group x time interaction for OHb (p < 0.05). Group effect NS for HHb & THb. Group effect p-value for OHb not stated. OHb after exercise increase from baseline: cases < controls, p = 0.05. | No |
Trapezius myalgia | Cagnie (2012) [75] | Oxygen saturation, muscle blood flow Oxygen saturation: MANOVA - main effects of time, muscle part, and interaction muscle part x group (p = 0.049). Post hoc cases < controls in L & R middle trapezius at all time points p = 0.03, except 40 min for R middle trapezius (NS). Blood flow: MANOVA - main effects of time, muscle part, and no interaction muscle part x group. No group effect. | Yes ↓ oxygen saturation in L & R trapezius at all but 1 time point. |
Trapezius myalgia | Flodgren (2010) [76] | Muscle oxygenation Muscle oxygenation percentage decreased during work (P = 0.02), and returned to baseline during recovery. | Perhaps No control subjects were included in this study. Authors conclude normal response in these cases when comparing them to a previous similar study with normal subjects (see Flodgren (2005)). |
Trapezius myalgia | Peolsson (2008) [45] | Strain rate, strain rate RMS - before provocation, after provocation, difference after - before NS cases vs. controls: strain rate, strain rate RMS - before provocation, after provocation, difference after - before. After factor analysis with strain rate and strain variables (not velocity variables), followed by clustering, distribution of cases and controls differed, p = 0.05. Examination of factors indicated that post-provocation -- most cases have lower levels of strain rate & strain after pain provocation compared with most controls. | No |
Trapezius myalgia | Sjøgaard (2010) [77] | ΔOHb, ΔHHb, ΔTHb from baseline Cases: OHb 35 min after start of peg board task < baseline, p < 0.05. Controls: OHb not different from baseline. Other OHb, HHb, and THb similar results for cases and controls. | Yes ↓ OHb (vs. baseline) 35 min after start of peg board task in cases, but no change in controls. |
Neck pain (10 studies)
Rotator cuff tear (11 studies)
Rotator cuff tendinitis (5 studies)
Adhesive Capsulitis (4 studies)
Shoulder impingement syndrome (5 studies)
Shoulder pain (4 studies)
Trapezius myalgia, cervicobrachial syndrome and other neck/shoulder pain (12 studies)
Are there quantitative imaging biomarkers associated with the severity of neck and shoulder MSDs?
MSD Classification or diagnosis Author(s) | Biomarker | Severity measure mean & range if available | Symptom duration (mean & SD if available) | Major results (association between biomarker & disease) | Conclusion |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Neck disorders and symptoms | |||||
Neck pain Dibai Filho (2012) [37] | Skin temperature | NDI Cases: 8.33 (SD = 2.65) Controls: 2.27 (SD = 1.27) | Unknown | Correlation NDI and skin temperature in right versus left trapezius; thermal asymmetry: NS. | No |
Neck pain Elliott (2008) [46] | Fat index indicating fatty infiltration (relative fat) | NDI Cases: 21.9 (SD = 7.5) Controls: 45.5 (SD = 15.9) | Cases: 33.7 (20.6) mo Controls: 20.3 (9.6) mo | Within groups there was no association between NDI and fat levels; total upper fat, p = 0.15; total fat, p = 0.94. (No description of total vs upper fat in paper) | No |
Neck pain Javanshir (2011) [48] | Longus colli muscle CSA, APD, LD, and LD/APD | NDI 33 (SD = 0.5) VAS pain intensity 5.1 (SD = 0.8) | ≥ 3 moa
| NDI and CSA: rho = −0.45, p = 0.05, dominant side; rho = −0.48, p = 0.03, non-dominant side. NDI and APD: rho = −0.49, p = 0.03, dominant side; rho = −0.45, p = 0.05 non-dominant side. NDI and LD or shape ratio, NS. VAS and CSA, APD, LD or shape ratio, NS. | Yes |
Shoulder disorders and symptoms | |||||
Rotator cuff tear (partial & full) or rotator cuff disease Keener (2015) [34] | Rotator cuff tear enlargement (see paper for definition), shoulder pain | ASES score - American Shoulder & Elbow Cases: 98.3 (IRQ = 10) Controls: 100(IQR = 0) Surgeons SST score - simple shoulder test (score normalized to 100) Cases: 91.7 (IQR = 33) Controls: 100(IQR = 0) VAS pain intensityCases & controls: 1.0 (IQR = 0) | Unknown | ASES: smaller w. advancing tear type, p < 0.05; median decreased by 31.9 points w. new pain, p < 0.05. SST: smaller w. advancing tear type, p < 0.05; median decreased by 14.8 points w. new pain, p < 0.05. VAS: NS. w. advancing tear type; median increased by 3 points w. new pain, p < 0.05. | Yes |
Shoulder impingement syndrome Park (2007) [70] | Difference in mean skin temperature btwn shoulder sides | VAS pain intensity 6.6 (5.5–9) | 22.6 (SD = 40.4) mo | NS differences btwn normal, hypothermic, and hyperthermic cases for VAS (all cases in this analysis, hypothermic defined as abnormally low temperature in involved side vs uninvolved side, hyperthermic defined as opposite of hypothermic). | No |
Neck/shoulder disorders and symptoms | |||||
Neck/shoulder pain Nilsen (2007) [42] | Finger skin blood flow | VAS pain intensity: maximal pain response, shoulder pain response, neck pain response Maximal pain response: Cases: 25 (SD = 20.0) Controls: 15 (SD = 16.1) Shoulder pain response: Cases: 17 (SD = 16.9) Controls: 10 (SD = 12.6) Neck pain response: Cases: 20 (SD = 20.3) Controls: 9 (SD = 11.1) | > 3 mo a
| Maximal pain response: correlation w. finger skin blood flow response during first 10 min of the stressful task in cases, (rho = 0.52, p = 0.004), NS in controls (rho = 0.06, p = 0.71. | Yes |
Neck/shoulder pain Strøm (2009) [43] | Blood flow | Complaint severity score: neck pain, shoulder pain, musculoskeletal complaint severity index (MCI; mean of 7 pain items). 0 = no complaint; 12 = severe complaint. VAS during experiment: pain intensity and general tension Median (range) cases: neck pain 3 (1–12), shoulder pain 4 (0–12), MCI 2.5 (0.3–4.1) controls: neck pain 0 (0–6), shoulder pain 0 (0–6), MCI 0.5 (0–2.1) These scores are a composite measure of intensity x duration during the 4 weeks preceding the experiment. | 3 subjects (2 women) reported having had shoulder and neck pain for less than 12 months, 13 (7 women) for 1–years, three (all men) for 5–10 years, and five (all women) for more than 10 years. | Cases: correlation between pain VAS and blood flow in active trapezius at end of work task (90 min): rho = 0.47, p = 0.03. No correlation at 15 or 45 min into work task, p > 0.05. Controls: no correlation at 15, 45, or 90 min into work task, p ≥ 0.05. Cases: correlation between pain VAS and blood flow in contralateral trapezius at end of work task (90 min): rho = −0.53, p < 0.01. No correlation at 15 or 45 min into work task, p > 0.05. Controls: similar direction of results, no rho or p-values supplied. | Yes |
Neck/shoulder pain Takiguchi (2010) [79] | Minimal & maximal standardized uptake values (SUV) of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose (18F–FDG) | VAS | > 6 mo, with pain at least 1×/moa
| Trapezius: mean SUVs & pain VAS (SUVmax: r = −0.603, p < 0.0001; SUVmin: r = −0.405, p < 0.0001). Gluteus maximus: mean SUVs & pain VAS, NS. | Yes |