Is Muscle Weakness a Risk Factor of the Development of Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy – A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BackgroundUnderlying muscle weakness may explain the inconsistency in the development of rotator cuff tendinopathy in population with similar activity levels. This systematic review aims to assess existing prospective studies to evaluate whether muscle weakness is a risk factor to the development of rotator cuff tendinopathy. MethodsA systematic search was performed using the PRISMA guidelines. Prospective studies measuring muscle strength or stiffness and the incidence of rotator cuff tendinopathy will be included. Quality assessment was performed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. ResultsThe search yielded 6 studies, with a total of 523 trained overhead athletes followed up for 1 season. External and internal rotation strength was described as protective factors for the development of rotator cuff tendinopathy, with an odds ratio of 0.940 (p < 0.05) and 0.946 (p < 0.01) respectively for each N/m increased in force generated. Limited range of motion of <106o for shoulder external rotation was also described as a risk factor with an odds ratio of 1.12 (p < 0.001).Imbalance between external and internal rotation strength was reported as a risk factor for shoulder injuries in 2 studies, with a relative risk of 2.57 (p < 0.05) reported in 1 of them. Supraspinatus weakness was also reported as a risk factor for shoulder injuries in 1 study, with no odds ratio or relative risk provided. Due to insufficient data, combination into a meta-analysis was not possible. ConclusionsLimited evidence support that weakness of the external rotators, weakness in the internal rotators, and limited range of motion in external rotation are risk factors to the development of rotator cuff tendinopathy. Very limited evidence support that imbalance in external rotator and internal rotator strength, and supraspinatus weakness are risk factors for rotator cuff tendinopathies. Future cohort studies may improve on existing evidence with investigations on more muscle groups, a longer follow-up time, clearly documented injury history, and a stringent diagnosis to rotator cuff tendinopathy.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".