Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,100Open textbooks2Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology107Genetics and Genomics95Neuroscience110Cardiovascular Medicine105Immunology90Pharmacology99Molecular Biology100Infectious Diseases102Rare and Inherited Diseases106Clinical Research98Anatomy and Physiology542Drugs and Chemicals546
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Neuroscience›Shoulder Pain
Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Shoulder Pain

Neuroscience · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-10-29 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed10 referencesApproximately 7 min read

Unilateral or bilateral pain of the shoulder.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 4 complete abstracts (1,406 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

Unilateral or bilateral pain of the shoulder. It is often caused by physical activities such as work or sports participation, but may also be pathologic in origin.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Pain, Shoulder; Pains, Shoulder; Shoulder Pains.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Arthralgia

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 6,854 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Shoulder Pain” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 2,034 of them (29.7%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 2,965 records.

Reviews account for 946 records (13.8%) and meta-analyses for 210. Randomized controlled trials number 993 (14.5%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up a comparatively large share of this literature, which means many treatment questions have been tested directly.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 199 records; 2000-2009: 1,656 records; 2010-2019: 2,965 records; 2020 onward: 2,034 records199through 19991,6562000-20092,9652010-20192,0342020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 1999199
2000-20091,656
2010-20192,965
2020 onward2,034
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 13.8 percent; Meta-analyses: 3.1 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 14.5 percentReviews13.8% (946)Meta-analyses3.1% (210)Randomized controlled trials14.5% (993)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 6,854 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews94613.8%
Meta-analyses2103.1%
Randomized controlled trials99314.5%

Method: PubMed query "Shoulder Pain"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.

Reading the evidence in neuroscience

Neuroscience draws on tools with different strengths: cellular and animal work can manipulate circuits directly, while human imaging and electrophysiology observe the living brain at lower resolution. Small imaging studies are prone to false positives, and findings in animals do not always carry over to people. Clinical neurology and psychiatry rely on trials and cohort studies whose outcomes are often symptom scales. Check the species, the sample size, how the outcome was measured and whether results were replicated.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
A systematic review of the global prevalence and incidence of shoulder pain
Lucas J, van Doorn P, Hegedus E, Lewis J, van der Windt D
2022Systematic review
Design not recorded in structured metadata
185cc by
PMID 36476476 · DOI · PMC9730650
Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction
Aflatooni JO, Meeks BD, Froehle AW, Bonner KF
2020Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
49cc by
PMID 32070381 · DOI · PMC7029563
Internet and Telerehabilitation-Delivered Management of Rotator Cuff-Related Shoulder Pain (INTEL Trial): Randomized Controlled Pilot and Feasibility Trial
Malliaras P, Cridland K, Hopmans R, Ashton S, Littlewood C, Page R, et al.
2020Randomized controlled trial
Design not recorded in structured metadata
44cc by
PMID 33206059 · DOI · PMC7710452
Incidental Rotator Cuff Abnormalities on Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Ibounig T, Järvinen TLN, Raatikainen S, Härkänen T, Sillanpää N, Bensch F, et al.
2026Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
10cc by
PMID 41697693 · DOI · PMC12910452

A systematic review of the global prevalence and incidence of shoulder pain [1]

Systematic review Lucas J, van Doorn P, Hegedus E, Lewis J, van der Windt D · · 2022 · cited 185 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Background and objectivesStudies reporting on the population burden of people living with shoulder pain show wide heterogeneity in terms of case definition, study samples, and occurrence.
Closing excerpt
Regional gaps in evidence and methodological inconsistencies must be addressed in order to establish a more definitive global burden.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (341 words)

Background and objectivesStudies reporting on the population burden of people living with shoulder pain show wide heterogeneity in terms of case definition, study samples, and occurrence. This systematic review aims to summarize evidence pertaining to the prevalence and incidence of shoulder pain, including variability based on sex and geography. We also explored the potential influence of methodological limitations and important sources of heterogeneity (case definition and reference period) on reported estimates of shoulder pain prevalence.Databases and data treatmentThe study protocol was registered on Prospero under CRD42021243140. We searched EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and Medline from inception to March 2021. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment was conducted by a team of three researchers. We performed a narrative synthesis of the data, using forest plots to summarize study findings, and stratified data presentation to explore the potential association of risk of bias, case definition, and reference period with estimates of prevalence and incidence of shoulder pain.ResultsWe obtained data from 61 studies reporting data from high-, middle- and low-income countries. The overall risk of bias was low, with most rated as "low-risk" and no studies rated as "high-risk". The community prevalence of shoulder pain varied widely across the countries included in our review, with a median of 16% (range 0.67 to 55.2%). Longer reference periods were typically associated with higher prevalence estimates. Primary care prevalence ranged from 1.01 to 4.84% (median 2.36%). Estimates were generally higher for women than men and were higher in high-income nations. The incidence of shoulder pain ranged from 7.7 to 62 per 1000 persons per year (median 37.8 per 1000 persons per year). Risk of bias did not clearly explain variability in study findings, but there was considerable variation in study samples, methods used, and a relative absence of data from low-income countries.ConclusionsOur review demonstrates that a significant proportion of the population across the world will experience shoulder pain daily, yearly, and throughout a lifetime. Regional gaps in evidence and methodological inconsistencies must be addressed in order to establish a more definitive global burden.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 36476476 · DOI · PMC9730650

Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction [2]

Research article Aflatooni JO, Meeks BD, Froehle AW, Bonner KF · · 2020 · cited 49 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundBiceps tenotomy and tenodesis are surgical treatments for pathology of the proximal tendon of the long head of the biceps.
Closing excerpt
Level of evidenceLevel III evidence, retrospective comparative cohort study.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (340 words)

BackgroundBiceps tenotomy and tenodesis are surgical treatments for pathology of the proximal tendon of the long head of the biceps. There is debate over which procedure provides better patient outcomes.PurposeCompare patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction between biceps tenotomy and tenodesis.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study including all patients undergoing arthroscopic biceps tenodesis or tenotomy as part of more extensive shoulder surgery with a single surgeon. Concomitant procedures included rotator cuff repair, subacromial decompression, acromioclavicular joint resection, and debridement. Patients 36-81 years old were contacted by phone at > 2-year post-operatively to complete a biceps-specific outcome questionnaire. Subject decision not to participate was the sole exclusion criterion. Satisfaction scores and frequencies of potential biceps-related downsides (biceps cramping/spasms, biceps pain, shoulder pain, weakness, cosmetic deformity) were analyzed for the effects of procedure, sex, and age.ResultsSatisfaction score distributions were similar between patients with tenodesis and patients with tenotomy (χ2 = 8.34, P = 0.08), although slightly more patients with tenodesis than patients with tenotomy reported being satisfied or very satisfied (96% versus 91%). Perceived downsides occurred more frequently among patients with tenotomy than in patients with tenodesis: 59% of patients with tenotomy reported ≥ 1 downside, versus 37% of patients with tenodesis (P 2 = 10.04, P = 0.04): patients with tenotomy were more likely to report multiple concurrent downsides than were patients with tenodesis (31% versus 16%). Each individual downside tended to be reported as present by a greater proportion of patients with tenotomy than patients with tenodesis. Sex had no effect on satisfaction or downsides, but there was a trend for older patients to report higher satisfaction and fewer downsides.ConclusionsBiceps tenotomy and tenodesis are both viable treatments for proximal biceps tendon pathology, yielding high patient satisfaction. There were trends toward greater satisfaction and fewer problems in patients with tenodesis. Still, younger patients with tenodesis did report perceived downsides. Alternatively, older patients tended to be more satisfied with both procedures overall. Regardless of procedure, most patients receiving either tenotomy or tenodesis would undergo their respective surgery again.Level of evidenceLevel III evidence, retrospective comparative cohort study.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 32070381 · DOI · PMC7029563

Internet and Telerehabilitation-Delivered Management of Rotator Cuff-Related Shoulder Pain (INTEL Trial): Randomized Controlled Pilot and Feasibility Trial [3]

Randomized controlled trial Malliaras P, Cridland K, Hopmans R, Ashton S, Littlewood C, Page R, et al. · · 2020 · cited 44 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundRotator cuff-related shoulder pain (RCRSP) is a common and disabling musculoskeletal condition.
Closing excerpt
com/yy6eztf5.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (415 words)

BackgroundRotator cuff-related shoulder pain (RCRSP) is a common and disabling musculoskeletal condition. Internet-based and telerehabilitation delivery of recommended care may improve access to care and improve adherence and outcomes.ObjectiveThe primary aim of this pilot randomized controlled trial was to assess the feasibility of a 12-week internet-delivered intervention for RCRSP comparing advice only, recommended care, and recommended care with group-based telerehabilitation.MethodsReporting was in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist for pilot and feasibility trials. People with a primary complaint of RCRSP for 3 months or longer were identified via a paid Facebook strategy. Screening involved an online questionnaire followed by a 20-minute telehealth assessment. Participants were randomly allocated (via a Zelen design) to receive (1) advice only, (2) recommended care (internet-delivered evidence-based exercise and education), or (3) recommended care and telerehabilitation (including a weekly group teleconference session). Progression criteria for a full-scale trial included (1) recruitment of 20% or greater of eligible participants, (2) acceptable adherence (two or more of the three prescribed weekly sessions) among 70% or greater of participants, (3) 80% or greater retention of participants, (4) absence of intervention-related serious adverse events, and (5) 80% or greater response rates to questionnaires. Secondary clinical and patient knowledge outcomes were collected (via email or text) at baseline, six weeks, and 12 weeks (for clinical and patient knowledge), and within-group change was reported descriptively.ResultsWe enrolled 36 of 38 (95%) eligible participants and all participants were recruited within a 3-week period. Of the 36 participants, 12 participants were allocated to each of the three trial arms. The mean age of participants was between 51 and 56 years, and 83% (10/12) to 92% (11/12) were female. Retention at the 12-week endpoint was 94% (34/36) and response to email questionnaires at other time points was 83% or greater. We found acceptable adherence (defined as greater than 70% of participants performing exercise 2 or 3 times/week) in the recommended care group with telerehabilitation but not in the recommended care group without telerehabilitation. There was a total of 24 adverse events over 108 person-months of observation. All adverse events were mild or moderate (mainly muscle and shoulder symptoms), with the exception of one instance of elective surgery (unrelated to the person's shoulder condition).ConclusionsOur prespecified success criteria were met or exceeded, but there was a gender imbalance toward women. It is feasible to progress to a fully powered trial, but strategies to address the gender imbalance need to be implemented.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12620000248965); https://tinyurl.com/yy6eztf5.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 33206059 · DOI · PMC7710452

Incidental Rotator Cuff Abnormalities on Magnetic Resonance Imaging [4]

Research article Ibounig T, Järvinen TLN, Raatikainen S, Härkänen T, Sillanpää N, Bensch F, et al. · · 2026 · cited 10 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
ImportanceShoulder pain is a common musculoskeletal complaint often attributed to rotator cuff (RC) abnormalities.
Closing excerpt
These findings suggest that RC abnormalities often represent normal age-related changes rather than disease and call into question the clinical value of routine imaging for atraumatic shoulder pain.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (310 words)

ImportanceShoulder pain is a common musculoskeletal complaint often attributed to rotator cuff (RC) abnormalities. Diagnostic imaging is frequently used, but the association between RC abnormalities and shoulder symptoms remains uncertain.ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence of RC abnormalities in a general population sample and their association with shoulder symptoms.Design, setting, and participantsPopulation-based cross-sectional study in a nationally representative random sample of adults aged 41 to 76 years who underwent standardized clinical assessment and bilateral 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the shoulders conducted from February 2023 to April 2024 in Finland. Eligibility criteria included ability to undergo MRI and absence of previous shoulder replacement surgery.ExposuresStructured interviews, standardized questionnaires, clinical shoulder tests, and shoulder MRI.Main outcomes and measuresRC tendon status was classified on MRI as normal, tendinopathic, partial-thickness tear (PTT), or full-thickness tear (FTT). Shoulder symptoms were defined as pain or dysfunction in the preceding week. The prevalence of RC abnormalities was compared across age groups and between symptomatic and asymptomatic shoulders, adjusting for demographic factors, concurrent MRI findings, and clinical examination.ResultsAmong 602 participants (median age, 58 [range, 41-76] years; 52% female), RC abnormalities on MRI were found in 595 (98.7%; 95% CI, 97.5%-99.5%): 25% tendinopathy, 62% PTT, and 11% FTT. The prevalence and severity of abnormalities increased with age but did not differ between sexes. RC abnormalities were present in 96% of asymptomatic shoulders (1039 of 1076) and 98% of symptomatic shoulders (126 of 128). Only FTTs were more prevalent in symptomatic shoulders (14.6%) than in asymptomatic shoulders (6.5%), but this difference diminished after adjustment (absolute difference, 0.8%; 95% CI, -3.4% to 6.0%).Conclusions and relevanceIn this population-based study, RC abnormalities were nearly universal after age 40 years and showed poor concordance with shoulder symptoms. These findings suggest that RC abnormalities often represent normal age-related changes rather than disease and call into question the clinical value of routine imaging for atraumatic shoulder pain.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41697693 · DOI · PMC12910452

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article Prevalence and incidence of shoulder pain in the general population; a systematic review [5]
    Luime JJ, Koes BW, Hendriksen IJ, Burdorf A, Verhagen AP, Miedema HS, et al. · Scand J Rheumatol · 2004 · cited 812 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article The association of scapular kinematics and glenohumeral joint pathologies [6]
    Ludewig PM, Reynolds JF · J Orthop Sports Phys Ther · 2009 · cited 542 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Measures of adult shoulder function: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (DASH) and its short version (QuickDASH), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Society standardized shoulder assessment form, Constant (Murley) Score (CS), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), Shoulder Disability Questionnaire (SDQ), and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) [7]
    Angst F, Schwyzer HK, Aeschlimann A, Simmen BR, Goldhahn J · Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) · 2011 · cited 419 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Shoulder pain and mobility deficits: adhesive capsulitis [8]
    Kelley MJ, Shaffer MA, Kuhn JE, Michener LA, Seitz AL, Uhl TL, et al. · J Orthop Sports Phys Ther · 2013 · cited 268 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Effectiveness of dry needling for myofascial trigger points associated with neck and shoulder pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis [9]
    Liu L, Huang QM, Liu QG, Ye G, Bo CZ, Chen MJ, et al. · Arch Phys Med Rehabil · 2015 · cited 190 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Corticosteroid injections for painful shoulder: a meta-analysis [10]
    Arroll B, Goodyear-Smith F · Br J Gen Pract · 2005 · cited 163 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Lucas J, van Doorn P, Hegedus E, Lewis J, van der Windt D. A systematic review of the global prevalence and incidence of shoulder pain. . 2022. PMID 36476476 · DOI · PMC9730650
  2. Aflatooni JO, Meeks BD, Froehle AW, Bonner KF. Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction. . 2020. PMID 32070381 · DOI · PMC7029563
  3. Malliaras P, Cridland K, Hopmans R, Ashton S, Littlewood C, Page R, et al.. Internet and Telerehabilitation-Delivered Management of Rotator Cuff-Related Shoulder Pain (INTEL Trial): Randomized Controlled Pilot and Feasibility Trial. . 2020. PMID 33206059 · DOI · PMC7710452
  4. Ibounig T, Järvinen TLN, Raatikainen S, Härkänen T, Sillanpää N, Bensch F, et al.. Incidental Rotator Cuff Abnormalities on Magnetic Resonance Imaging. . 2026. PMID 41697693 · DOI · PMC12910452
  5. Luime JJ, Koes BW, Hendriksen IJ, Burdorf A, Verhagen AP, Miedema HS, et al.. Prevalence and incidence of shoulder pain in the general population; a systematic review. Scand J Rheumatol. 2004. PMID 15163107 · DOI
  6. Ludewig PM, Reynolds JF. The association of scapular kinematics and glenohumeral joint pathologies. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009. PMID 19194022 · DOI · PMC2730194
  7. Angst F, Schwyzer HK, Aeschlimann A, Simmen BR, Goldhahn J. Measures of adult shoulder function: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (DASH) and its short version (QuickDASH), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Society standardized shoulder assessment form, Constant (Murley) Score (CS), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), Shoulder Disability Questionnaire (SDQ), and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011. PMID 22588743 · DOI
  8. Kelley MJ, Shaffer MA, Kuhn JE, Michener LA, Seitz AL, Uhl TL, et al.. Shoulder pain and mobility deficits: adhesive capsulitis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013. PMID 23636125 · DOI
  9. Liu L, Huang QM, Liu QG, Ye G, Bo CZ, Chen MJ, et al.. Effectiveness of dry needling for myofascial trigger points associated with neck and shoulder pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015. PMID 25576642 · DOI
  10. Arroll B, Goodyear-Smith F. Corticosteroid injections for painful shoulder: a meta-analysis. Br J Gen Pract. 2005. PMID 15808040 · PMC1463095

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-10-29.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • Acute PainNeuroscience
  • Cancer PainNeuroscience
  • Neck PainNeuroscience
  • NeuralgiaNeuroscience
  • Back PainNeuroscience
  • HeadacheNeuroscience

All 110 articles in Neuroscience →

At a glance

6,854
PubMed records on this heading
30%
published since 2020
946
review articles
993
randomized trials
10
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-10-29; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • Acute PainNeuroscience
  • Cancer PainNeuroscience
  • Neck PainNeuroscience
  • NeuralgiaNeuroscience
  • Back PainNeuroscience

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Legal · Support