Speaker: Andrew Cuff, PhD, Cora Health and Liverpool Hope University, UK
Congress: Sport & Exercise Medicine Switzerland and Swiss Sport Physiotherapy Association joint conference: “Structure & Function”, Lausanne, October 30th and 31st 2025
Scan to access presentation on Sportfisio YouTube channel
Introduction
The differential diagnosis of arm pain—determining whether symptoms originate from cervical or glenohumeral pathology—represents a fundamental clinical decision in musculoskeletal practice. However, the clinical necessity of this differentiation in non-traumatic presentations warrants critical examination. This article presents a provocative evidence-based analysis challenging conventional diagnostic approaches, drawing from research presented by Andrew Cuff, Clinical Director at Cora Health.
The central question: clinical relevance of Differentiation
When faced with patients presenting with shoulder/arm pain, does definitive source localization fundamentally alter clinical management? While informal polling revealed overwhelming consensus that differentiation is important
(96-98% of clinicians), this perspective requires evidence-based scrutiny.
Situations Where Differentiation Matters
Certain clinical contexts indisputably require accurate source identification:
• Serious pathology (e.g., osteosarcoma, infection, fracture)
• Consideration of invasive interventions (surgery, intra-
articular injection)
• Acute traumatic pathology (dislocation, acute nerve root compression)
The Argument for Non-Essential Differentiation
For the majority of non-traumatic presentations managed conservatively by rehabilitation professionals, the clinical imperative for definitive differentiation may be overstated. This argument rests on three evidentiary pillars.
Evidentiary requirements for clinically meaningful Differentiation
For neck versus shoulder differentiation to be clinically essential in guiding conservative management, three conditions must be satisfied:
1. Diagnostic reliability: Clinicians must confidently and consistently identify the pain source.
2. Methodological consistency: Assessment approaches must demonstrate standardization across clinicians.
3. Treatment specificity: Interventions directed at the identified source must differ meaningfully and produce superior outcomes.
Current evidence suggests none of these conditions are adequately met.
Evidence against reliable Differentiation
Referral Pattern Overlap
Classical anatomical studies demonstrate substantial overlap in cervical and shoulder pain referral patterns. Cloward’s seminal work (1959), which involved selective disc stimulation in medical students using colored strings attached to individual discs, revealed predominant pain referral to the medial scapular border. Murphy’s research (2009), utilizing hypotonic saline injection into nerve roots, identified similar medial scapular pain patterns. These distributions overlap significantly with glenohumeral pathology referral patterns, creating inherent diagnostic ambiguity.
Test Reliability Deficits
Clinical tests purportedly differentiating cervical from shoulder pathology demonstrate inadequate psychometric properties. For clinical utility, diagnostic tests require ≥70% reliability—the threshold for consistent results when the same examiner assesses the same patient repeatedly.
Spurling’s test (cervical): 13% reliability Hawkins-Kennedy test (shoulder): 39% reliability.
Both tests fall substantially below acceptable thresholds, indicating that repeated examination of the same patient frequently yields contradictory results. This unreliability fundamentally undermines confident source identification.
Methodological Inconsistency in Research and Practice
Systematic review of shoulder research methodology revealed that 75% of studies either failed to exclude cervical contribution or relied exclusively on symptom location—an approach demonstrated to be unreliable. Survey data from practicing clinicians demonstrated that 20% would not attempt to rule out cervical contribution in patients presenting with shoulder pain, with substantial variation in assessment approaches among those who do attempt differentiation.
This heterogeneity in practice patterns reflects the absence of validated, standardized diagnostic algorithms and undermines the premise that reliable differentiation is achievable in routine clinical practice.
Evidence against treatment specificity
Cross-Region Treatment Effects
If neck and shoulder represent distinct diagnostic entities requiring targeted interventions, cervical-directed treatment should not improve shoulder-source pain. However, evidence contradicts this assumption: manual therapy applied to the cervical spine produces meaningful improvement in non-traumatic shoulder pain, regardless of presumed source. This cross-region therapeutic effect suggests either widespread diagnostic misclassification or shared therapeutic mechanisms that transcend anatomical source.
Convergence of Rehabilitation Approaches
Examination of evidence-based rehabilitation protocols reveals substantial overlap:
• Cervical rehabilitation: Scapular-focused exercises, large compound movements, progressive loading.
• Shoulder rehabilitation: Scapular-focused exercises, large compound movements, progressive loading
This convergence in exercise prescription undermines the argument that source-specific treatment is necessary or distinct. Furthermore, systematic review evidence demonstrates insufficient evidence that specific exercises outperform general exercises for shoulder pain, questioning whether anatomically targeted interventions provide meaningful benefit over broader movement-based approaches.
The holistic health perspective
The 20/80 Paradigm
Focus on anatomical source localization may constitute misplaced emphasis given broader determinants of health outcomes. Contemporary evidence indicates that access to clinical care accounts for only 20% of health outcomes, with the remaining 80% determined by socioeconomic and societal factors including social support, education, employment, housing stability, and health behaviors.
Beyond Biomechanical Reductionism
Recent literature, including work by Jeremy Lewis, outlines signals for progressing beyond tissue-specific exercise prescription, emphasizing holistic health aspects including psychological well-being, sleep quality, stress management, and social connectedness—factors equally essential to both rehabilitation outcomes and high-level performance.
This broader perspective suggests that excessive focus on precise anatomical diagnosis may divert clinical attention from more impactful determinants of patient outcomes.
Clinical implications and recommendations
Pragmatic Assessment Approach
Given the evidence limitations, clinicians should:
• Maintain vigilance for serious pathology requiring definitive diagnosis.
• Screen for red flags warranting medical referral or imaging.
• Avoid over-reliance on unreliable clinical tests for source localization.
• Recognize that uncertainty regarding precise anatomical source does not preclude effective conservative management.
Rehabilitation Philosophy
Evidence supports a movement-based approach emphasizing:
• Progressive loading tolerance across multiple movement patterns.
• Scapular control and kinetic chain integration.
• Aerobic conditioning for tissue health.
• Addressing psychological and social health determinants.
• Avoiding excessive focus on tissue-specific interventions when broader movement approaches appear equally or more effective.
Conclusion
Current evidence challenges the clinical necessity of definitively differentiating cervical from glenohumeral pain sources in non-traumatic presentations managed conservatively. Poor test reliability, inconsistent clinical methodology, overlapping treatment approaches, and comparable outcomes regardless of presumed source collectively suggest that this diagnostic differentiation may be less critical than conventional practice assumes. Combined with recognition that clinical interventions account for only a minority of health outcomes, this analysis advocates for a pragmatic, movement-based rehabilitation approach that addresses the whole person rather than pursuing elusive anatomical precision in source localization.
References
- Cuff A, Littlewood C. “Subacromial impingement syndrome” – what does this mean to and for the patient? A qualitative study. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2018 Feb;33:24–28. doi:10.1016/j.msksp.2017.10.008.
- Cloward RB. Cervical diskography. A contribution to the etiology and mechanism of neck, shoulder and arm pain. Ann Surg. 1959 Dec;150(6):1052-1064. doi:10.1097/00000658-195912000-00013.
- Murphy DR, Hurwitz EL, Gerrard JK, Clary R. Does the pain necessarily follow a specific dermatome? Pain distributions associated with radiculopathy. Chiropr Osteopat. 2009;17:9. doi:10.1186/1746-1340-17-9.
- Lin LH, Lin TY, Chang KV, Tzang CC, Wu WT, Özçakar L. Diagnostic performance of Spurling’s test for the assessment of sub-acute and chronic cervical radiculopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2025 Aug;104(8):717–723. doi:10.1097/PHM.0000000000002707.
- Walker T, Salt E, Lynch G, Littlewood C. Screening of the cervical spine in subacromial shoulder pain: a systematic review. Shoulder Elbow. 2019 Aug;11(4):305–315. doi:10.1177/1758573218798023.
- McClatchie L, Laprade J, Martin S, Jaglal SB, Richardson D, Agur A. Mobilizations of the asymptomatic cervical spine can reduce signs of shoulder dysfunction in adults. Man Ther. 2009 Aug;14(4):369–374. doi:10.1016/j.math.2008.05.006.
- Neves Antônio Gaban GL, Aguayo-Alves A, Noronha MA, Selistre LFA. Effects of therapeutic exercise on pain processing in people with chronic non-specific neck pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2024 Nov;74:103183. doi:10.1016/j.msksp.2024.103183.
- Shire AR, Stæhr TAB, Overby JB, Dahl MB, Sandell Jacobsen J, Christiansen DH. Specific or general exercise strategy for subacromial impingement syndrome — does it matter? A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017 Apr 4;18:158. doi:10.1186/s12891-017-1518-0.
- Lewis JS, Mintken PE, McDevitt AW. Treating musculoskeletal conditions with a bit of exercise and manual therapy: are you kidding me? It’s time for us to evolve again. J Man Manip Ther. 2025 Jun;33(3):167–172. doi:10.1080/10669817.2025.2494895.
Comments are closed.