Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) scores are commonly used by clinicians when determining patient response to treatment and to guide clinical decision-making during the course of treatment. For research purposes, the MCID score is often used in sample size calculations for adequate powering of a study to minimize the false-positives (type 1 errors) and the false-negatives (type 2 errors). For clinicians and researchers alike, it is critical that the MCID score is a valid and stable measure. A low MCID value may result in overestimating the positive effects of treatment, whereas a high MCID value may incorrectly classify patients as failing to respond to treatment when in fact the treatment was beneficial. The wide range of methodologies for calculating the MCID score results in varied outcomes, which leads to difficulties with interpretation and application. This clinimetrics corner outlines key factors influencing MCID estimates and discusses limitations with the use of the MCID in both clinical and research practice settings.

Objective: To update our previously published systematic review and meta-analysis by subjecting the literature on shoulder physical examination (ShPE) to careful analysis in order to determine each tests clinical utility.Methods: This review is an update of previous work, therefore the terms in the Medline and CINAHL search strategies remained the same with the exception that the search was confined to the dates November, 2006 through to February, 2012. The previous study dates were 1966 – October, 2006. Further, the original search was expanded, without date restrictions, to include two new databases: EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, version 2 (QUADAS 2) tool was used to critique the quality of each new paper. Where appropriate, data from the prior review and this review were combined to perform meta-analysis using the updated hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic and bivariate models.Results: Since the publication of the 2008 review, 32 additional studies were identified and critiqued. For subacromial impingement, the meta-analysis revealed that the pooled sensitivity and specificity for the Neer test was 72% and 60%, respectively, for the Hawkins-Kennedy test was 79% and 59%, respectively, and for the painful arc was 53% and 76%, respectively. Also from the meta-analysis, regarding superior labral anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears, the test with the best sensitivity (52%) was the relocation test; the test with the best specificity (95%) was Yergason's test; and the test with the best positive likelihood ratio (2.81) was the compression-rotation test. Regarding new (to this series of reviews) ShPE tests, where meta-analysis was not possible because of lack of sufficient studies or heterogeneity between studies, there are some individual tests that warrant further investigation. A highly specific test (specificity >80%, LR+ ≥ 5.0) from a low bias study is the passive distraction test for a SLAP lesion. This test may rule in a SLAP lesion when positive. A sensitive test (sensitivity >80%, LR− ≤ 0.20) of note is the shoulder shrug sign, for stiffness-related disorders (osteoarthritis and adhesive capsulitis) as well as rotator cuff tendinopathy. There are six additional tests with higher sensitivities, specificities, or both but caution is urged since all of these tests have been studied only once and more than one ShPE test (ie, active compression, biceps load II) has been introduced with great diagnostic statistics only to have further research fail to replicate the results of the original authors. The belly-off and modified belly press tests for subscapularis tendinopathy, bony apprehension test for bony instability, olecranon-manubrium percussion test for bony abnormality, passive compression for a SLAP lesion, and the lateral Jobe test for rotator cuff tear give reason for optimism since they demonstrated both high sensitivities and specificities reported in low bias studies. Finally, one additional test was studied in two separate papers. The dynamic labral shear may be sensitive for SLAP lesions but, when modified, be diagnostic of labral tears generally.Conclusion: Based on data from the original 2008 review and this update, the use of any single ShPE test to make a pathognomonic diagnosis cannot be unequivocally recommended. There exist some promising tests but their properties must be confirmed in more than one study. Combinations of ShPE tests provide better accuracy, but marginally so. These findings seem to provide support for stressing a comprehensive clinical examination including history and physical examination. However, there is a great need for large, prospective, well-designed studies that examine the diagnostic accuracy of the many aspects of the clinical examination and what combinations of these aspects are useful in differentially diagnosing pathologies of the shoulder.

Objective: To compile and critique research on the diagnostic accuracy of individual orthopaedic physical examination tests in a manner that would allow clinicians to judge whether these tests are valuable to their practice. Methods: A computer-assisted literature search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus databases (1966 to October 2006) using keywords related to diagnostic accuracy of physical examination tests of the shoulder. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool was used to critique the quality of each paper. Meta-analysis through meta-regression of the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was performed on the Neer test for impingement, the Hawkins−Kennedy test for impingement, and the Speed test for superior labral pathology. Results: Forty-five studies were critiqued with only half demonstrating acceptable high quality and only two having adequate sample size. For impingement, the meta-analysis revealed that the pooled sensitivity and specificity for the Neer test was 79% and 53%, respectively, and for the Hawkins−Kennedy test was 79% and 59%, respectively. For superior labral (SLAP) tears, the summary sensitivity and specificity of the Speed test was 32% and 61%, respectively. Regarding orthopaedic special tests (OSTs) where meta-analysis was not possible either due to lack of sufficient studies or heterogeneity between studies, the list that demonstrates both high sensitivity and high specificity is short: hornblowers’s sign and the external rotation lag sign for tears of the rotator cuff, biceps load II for superior labral anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesions, and apprehension, relocation and anterior release for anterior instability. Even these tests have been under-studied or are from lower quality studies or both. No tests for impingement or acromioclavicular (AC) joint pathology demonstrated significant diagnostic accuracy. Conclusion: Based on pooled data, the diagnostic accuracy of the Neer test for impingement, the Hawkins−Kennedy test for impingement and the Speed test for labral pathology is limited. There is a great need for large, prospective, well-designed studies that examine the diagnostic accuracy of the numerous physical examination tests of the shoulder. Currently, almost without exception, there is a lack of clarity with regard to whether common OSTs used in clinical examination are useful in differentially diagnosing pathologies of the shoulder.

Systematic review and meta-analysis. To identify, analyze, and synthesize the literature to determine which physical examination tests, if any, accurately diagnose a torn tibial meniscus. Knee pain has a lifetime prevalence of up to 45%, and as many as 31% of individuals with knee pain will consult a general practitioner. Roughly 5% of these individuals will undergo a tibial meniscectomy and many more will undergo partial meniscectomy or meniscus repair. Determining which of these individuals is appropriate for surgical consult depends on clinical examination findings. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus from1966 to August 2006 and extracted all English- and German-language studies that reported the diagnostic accuracy of individual physical examination tests for a torn meniscus. We retrieved data regarding true positives, false positives, true negatives, and false negatives to create 2-by-2 tables for each article and test. Like tests were then subjected to meta-analysis and subanalysis. Cochran Q test and the 12 statistic were used to examine for the presence of heterogeneity and the extent of the effect of heterogeneity, respectively. A qualitative analysis was also performed using the QUADAS tool. Eighteen studies qualified for the final analyses. Three physical examination tests (McMurray's, Apley's, and joint line tenderness) were examined in more than 7 studies and had enough data to consider meta-analysis. However, study results were heterogeneous. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 70% and 71% for McMurray's, 60% and 70% for Apley's, and 63% and 77% for joint line tenderness. Large between-study differences could not be explained by prevalence, study quality, or how well an index test was described. No single physical examination test appears to accurately diagnose a torn tibial meniscus and the value of history plus physical examination is unknown. Differences between studies in diagnostic performance remain unexplained, presumably due to local differences in the way the tests are defined, performed, and interpreted. We recommend a more standardized approach to performing and interpreting these tests and the development of a clinical prediction rule to aid clinicians in the diagnosis of a torn tibial meniscus.

Purpose: To investigate the diagnostic accuracy and association to disability of selected functional findings or physical examination tests for patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) in patients with anterior knee pain. Methods: A sample of 76 consecutive patients with anterior knee pain was further subdivided into PFPS and other diagnoses. Routine physical examination tests were examined in a prospective, consecutive-subjects design for a cohort of patients with anterior knee pain. Diagnostic accuracy findings, including sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive value, and positive (LR+) and negative (LR−) likelihood ratios, were calculated for each test. PPV and NPV reflect the percentage of time of positive or a negative test (respectively) accurately captures the diagnosis of the condition. LR+ and LR− reflect alterations in post-test probability when the test is positive or negative (respectively). Lastly, associations to disability (International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective form) were calculated for each clinical finding. Results: Diagnostic accuracy analyses of individual functional assessment and situational phenomena suggest that the strongest diagnostic test is pain encountered during resisted muscle contraction of the knee (PPV=82%; LR+=2.2; 95% CI: 0.99–5.2). Clusters of test findings were substantially more diagnostic, with any two of three positive findings of muscle contraction, pain during squatting, and pain during palpation yielding the following values: PPV=89%; LR+=4.0 (95% CI: 1.8–10.3). No individual or clustered test findings were significantly associated with the IKDC score. Conclusion: Combinations of functional assessment tests and situational phenomena are diagnostic for PFPS and may serve to rule in and rule out the presence of PFPS. Single findings are not related to disability scores (IKDC).