PTOTSystematic ReviewInternational journal of sports physical therapy2023

Is it Time to Normalize Scapular Dyskinesis? The Incidence of Scapular Dyskinesis in Those With and Without Symptoms: a Systematic Review of the Literature.

Paul A Salamh, William J Hanney, Trey Boles and 4 others

PMID 37425102

WHAT IT FOUND

Scapular dyskinesis appears in 60% of people with shoulder symptoms and 48% of those without.

Because nearly half of asymptomatic individuals show this movement pattern, it is likely normal variation rather than a pathology that requires correction.

Key findings

01The prevalence of scapular dyskinesis was 60% in symptomatic individuals and 48% in asymptomatic individuals.

02Among asymptomatic athletes, the prevalence of scapular dyskinesis ranged from 20% to 92%.

03Scapular dyskinesis increased during training sessions in asymptomatic competitive swimmers, reaching 82% and 85% at the end of sessions.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Only studies published in the English language were included, which may have excluded relevant research. There was a lack of consistency in how scapular dyskinesis was measured across studies, preventing a meta-analysis. The number of studies investigating symptomatic athletes was small (three studies, 68 individuals) compared to asymptomatic athletes (16 studies, 657 individuals). The timing of measurement for scapular dyskinesis was not consistent, particularly in athletic populations where it changes during activity.

Declared interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

The easy way to misread this

Do not interpret the higher prevalence of scapular dyskinesis in symptomatic individuals as proof that it causes shoulder pain. The study shows it is also present in 48% of asymptomatic people, meaning it is likely a common normal variation rather than a definitive pathological marker.

Read it on PubMed →