Accuracy of examination of the long head of the biceps tendon in the clinical setting: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People with shoulder pain seek medical attention in order to relieve their symptoms and improve their quality of life. However, given the complexity of the shoulder girdle, making the right diagnosis can be challenging. Clinicians and other healthcare practitioners base their approach on the findings of current medical history, as well as physical and ultrasound examinations. Once a structure is identified as a potential pain-generator, a specific therapy can be used. The biceps tendon is one such structure. The aim of this study is to assess the accuracy of physical and ultrasound examinations in diag nosing biceps tendon pathologies. This will help to guide clinical decision-making and may prevent delay in seeking specific treatment approaches. Objective: To determine the diagnostic validity of high-resolution ultrasound and orthopaedic special tests in diagnosing long head of the biceps tendon pathologies in patients with shoulder pain. Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis tools. Data sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE. Data extraction: Included studies had to report on the diagnostic validity of orthopaedic special tests or high-resolution ultrasound (HRUS) compared with a reference standard for diagnosing long head of the biceps tendon target conditions (superior labrum anterior and posterior lesions, long head of the biceps tendon tendinopathy, dislocation, effusion or rupture). Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Results: Of the 30 included studies, 8 focused on high-resolution ultrasound and 22 on orthopaedic special tests. High-resolution ultrasound proved highly specific for the diagnosis of long head of the biceps tendon pathologies. Pooled positive (LR+) and negative (LR-) likelihood ratios were 38.00 and 0.24 for dislocation, respectively, and 35.50 and 0.30 for complete rupture, respectively. The accuracy of orthopaedic special tests varied greatly across studies. The only test of value was Yergason's ma noeuvre in confirming proximal long head of the biceps tendon pathologies except superior labrum anterior and posterior lesion (high specificity): the summary LR+ and LR-were 2.56 and 0.70, respectively. Conclusion: High-resolution ultrasound is reliable to confirm suspected long head of the biceps tendon pathologies. There is insufficient evidence to recommend individual orthopaedic special tests.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".