Neck or Shoulder? Establishing Consensus for Spine Screening in Patients With Shoulder Pain: An International Modified Delphi Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is no established consensus for screening the spine in patients with shoulder pain. The aim of this study was to explore the role of the spine in shoulder pain and generate a set of recommendations for assessing the potential involvement of the spine in patients with shoulder pain. METHODS: A modified Delphi study was conducted through use of an international shoulder physical therapist's expert panel. Three domains (clinical reasoning, history, and physical examination) were evaluated using a Likert scale, with consensus defined as Aiken Validity Index ≥0.7. RESULTS: Twenty-two physical therapists participated. Consensus was reached on a total of 30 items: clinical reasoning (n = 9), history (n = 13), and physical examination (n = 8). The statement that spinal and shoulder disorders can coexist, sometimes influencing each other and at other times remaining independent issues, along with the concept of radiating pain as an explanatory phenomenon for the spine contribution to shoulder pain, achieved the highest degree of consensus. CONCLUSION: International physical therapists shoulder experts reached consensus on key aspects when screening the spine in people with shoulder pain, including consideration of the distal location of symptoms relative to the shoulder, the presence or previous history of neck pain, the changes in symptoms related to neck movements, and the presence of neuropathic-like symptoms. They also acknowledged the importance of assessing active cervical or cervicothoracic movements and the usefulness of the Spurling test and symptom modification techniques applied to the spine. IMPACT: This consensus holds implications for both clinical practice and research. In research, applying these considerations may ensure more homogenous samples, thereby enhancing the investigation of outcomes in shoulder pain populations. In clinical practice, determining the need for spine screening and its potential impact on prognosis and management could significantly influence patient care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".