Skip to main content

Inadequate cervicothoracic assessment is nearly universal for screening participants with lateral elbow tendinopathy: A systematic review of 208 randomized controlled trials

Journal
Shoulder & elbow (Q2)
Published
10 July 2026
Study design
Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
Authors
Matthew R Schumacher, Emma K Bakken, Kaitlyn P Reynolds, Dylan R Elletson, Jody L Eckert
PMID
42437185
DOI
10.1177/17585732261467932

Why clinicians should know about it

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) is the most common musculoskeletal elbow disorder. Evidence suggests that cervicothoracic involvement often contributes to forearm symptoms and that addressing the spine improves clinical outcomes. This review aimed to evaluate screening methods for the cervicothoracic spine in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated and treated LET. METHODS: This review included RCTs from PubMed, CINAHL, and CENTRAL (inception to 10 June 2025) that evaluated conservative interventions for adults with a primary diagnosis of LET. Data on cervicothoracic spine screening methods were categorized into three levels: thorough (≥4 screening items), partial (1-3 items), or no screening. Frequencies reported the extent of screening across trials. RESULTS: A total of 2744 articles were retrieved, and 208 RCTs were included for data extraction. Four (1.9%) RCTs adequately reported a thorough cervicothoracic screening process before diagnosing LET, based on predefined screening criteria. A total of six trials (2.9%) were partially screened, while many (95.2%) reported no screening. DISCUSSION: Less than 2% of LET RCTs did not perform or explicitly report objective screening of the cervicothoracic region, highlighting a need for standardized screening protocols to better characterize participants in future research and clarify the role of the cervicothoracic spine in LET outcomes.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.