Acute Shoulder Pain

Variant: 1 Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Any etiology. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Radiography shoulder	Usually Appropriate	☢
US shoulder	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MR arthrography shoulder	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI shoulder without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI shoulder without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan shoulder	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT shoulder with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT shoulder without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT shoulder without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT arthrography shoulder	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Suspect occult fracture. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI shoulder without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CT shoulder without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
US shoulder	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MR arthrography shoulder	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI shoulder without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan shoulder	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT shoulder with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT shoulder without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT arthrography shoulder	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 3 Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Radiographs positive for proximal humerus, scapular, or clavicle fracture. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
CT shoulder without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI shoulder without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
US shoulder	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MR arthrography shoulder	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI shoulder without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan shoulder	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT shoulder with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT shoulder without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT arthrography shoulder	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 4 Adult. Acute shoulder pain. History or physical examination consistent with dislocation or instability. Radiographs positive, negative, or indeterminate. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI shoulder without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MR arthrography shoulder	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	O
CT shoulder without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	☢☢☢
US shoulder	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI shoulder without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan shoulder	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT shoulder with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT shoulder without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT arthrography shoulder	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 5 Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Physical examination consistent with labral tear. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MR arthrography shoulder	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI shoulder without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CT arthrography shoulder	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US shoulder	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI shoulder without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan shoulder	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT shoulder with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT shoulder without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT shoulder without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 6 Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Physical examination consistent with rotator cuff tear. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US shoulder	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI shoulder without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MR arthrography shoulder	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI shoulder without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan shoulder	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT shoulder with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT shoulder without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT shoulder without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT arthrography shoulder	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Panel Members

Olga Laur, MD^a; Alice S. Ha, MD, MS^b; Roger J. Bartolotta, MD^c; Ryan Avery, MD^d; Cyrus P. Bateni, MD^e; Karen C. Chen, MD^f; Aleksey Dvorzhinskiy, MD^g; Jonathan Flug, MD, MBA^h; Christian S. Geannette, MDⁱ; Tate Hinkle, MD^j; Christopher Hogrefe, MD^k; Benjamin E. Plotkin, MD^l; Michael J. Todd, MD^m; Eric Y. Chang, MDⁿ.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Any etiology. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Any etiology. Initial imaging.
A. Bone scan shoulder

Variant 1: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Any etiology. Initial imaging.
B. CT arthrography shoulder

Variant 1: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Any etiology. Initial imaging.
C. CT shoulder with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Any etiology. Initial imaging.
D. CT shoulder without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Any etiology. Initial imaging.
E. CT shoulder without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Any etiology. Initial imaging.
F. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh

Variant 1: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Any etiology. Initial imaging.
G. MR arthrography shoulder

Variant 1: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Any etiology. Initial imaging.
H. MRI shoulder without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Any etiology. Initial imaging.
I. MRI shoulder without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Any etiology. Initial imaging.
J. Radiography shoulder

Variant 1: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Any etiology. Initial imaging.
K. US shoulder

Variant 2: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Suspect occult fracture. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.

Variant 2: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Suspect occult fracture. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan shoulder

Variant 2: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Suspect occult fracture. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
B. CT arthrography shoulder

Variant 2: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Suspect occult fracture. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
C. CT shoulder with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Suspect occult fracture. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
D. CT shoulder without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Suspect occult fracture. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
E. CT shoulder without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Suspect occult fracture. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
F. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh

Variant 2: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Suspect occult fracture. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
G. MR arthrography shoulder

Variant 2: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Suspect occult fracture. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
H. MRI shoulder without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Suspect occult fracture. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
I. MRI shoulder without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Suspect occult fracture. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
J. US shoulder

Variant 3: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Radiographs positive for proximal humerus, scapular, or clavicle fracture. Next imaging study.

Variant 3: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Radiographs positive for proximal humerus, scapular, or clavicle fracture. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan shoulder

Variant 3: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Radiographs positive for proximal humerus, scapular, or clavicle fracture. Next imaging study.
B. CT arthrography shoulder

Variant 3: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Radiographs positive for proximal humerus, scapular, or clavicle fracture. Next imaging study.
C. CT shoulder with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Radiographs positive for proximal humerus, scapular, or clavicle fracture. Next imaging study.
D. CT shoulder without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Radiographs positive for proximal humerus, scapular, or clavicle fracture. Next imaging study.
E. CT shoulder without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Radiographs positive for proximal humerus, scapular, or clavicle fracture. Next imaging study.
F. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh

Variant 3: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Radiographs positive for proximal humerus, scapular, or clavicle fracture. Next imaging study.
G. MR arthrography shoulder

Variant 3: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Radiographs positive for proximal humerus, scapular, or clavicle fracture. Next imaging study.
H. MRI shoulder without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Radiographs positive for proximal humerus, scapular, or clavicle fracture. Next imaging study.
I. MRI shoulder without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Radiographs positive for proximal humerus, scapular, or clavicle fracture. Next imaging study.
J. US shoulder

Variant 4: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. History or physical examination consistent with dislocation or instability. Radiographs positive, negative, or indeterminate. Next imaging study.

Variant 4: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. History or physical examination consistent with dislocation or instability. Radiographs positive, negative, or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan shoulder

Variant 5: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Physical examination consistent with labral tear. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.

Variant 5: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Physical examination consistent with labral tear. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan shoulder

Variant 5: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Physical examination consistent with labral tear. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
B. CT arthrography shoulder

Variant 5: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Physical examination consistent with labral tear. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
C. CT shoulder with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Physical examination consistent with labral tear. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
D. CT shoulder without and with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Physical examination consistent with labral tear. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
E. CT shoulder without IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Physical examination consistent with labral tear. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
F. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh

Variant 5: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Physical examination consistent with labral tear. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
G. MR arthrography shoulder

Variant 5: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Physical examination consistent with labral tear. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
H. MRI shoulder without and with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Physical examination consistent with labral tear. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
I. MRI shoulder without IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Physical examination consistent with labral tear. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
J. US shoulder

Variant 6: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Physical examination consistent with rotator cuff tear. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.

Variant 6: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Physical examination consistent with rotator cuff tear. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan shoulder

Variant 6: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Physical examination consistent with rotator cuff tear. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
B. CT arthrography shoulder

Variant 6: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Physical examination consistent with rotator cuff tear. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
C. CT shoulder with IV contrast

Variant 6: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Physical examination consistent with rotator cuff tear. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
D. CT shoulder without and with IV contrast

Variant 6: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Physical examination consistent with rotator cuff tear. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
E. CT shoulder without IV contrast

Variant 6: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Physical examination consistent with rotator cuff tear. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
F. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh

Variant 6: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Physical examination consistent with rotator cuff tear. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
G. MR arthrography shoulder

Variant 6: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Physical examination consistent with rotator cuff tear. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
H. MRI shoulder without and with IV contrast

Variant 6: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Physical examination consistent with rotator cuff tear. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
I. MRI shoulder without IV contrast

Variant 6: Adult. Acute shoulder pain. Physical examination consistent with rotator cuff tear. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
J. US shoulder

Summary of Highlights

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Gender Equality and Inclusivity Clause

The ACR acknowledges the limitations in applying inclusive language when citing research studies that predates the use of the current understanding of language inclusive of diversity in sex, intersex, gender, and gender-diverse people. The data variables regarding sex and gender used in the cited literature will not be changed. However, this guideline will use the terminology and definitions as proposed by the National Institutes of Health.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Chillemi C, Franceschini V, Dei Giudici L, et al. Epidemiology of isolated acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Emerg Med Int. 2013;2013:171609.
2.	Zacchilli MA, Owens BD. Epidemiology of shoulder dislocations presenting to emergency departments in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(3):542-549.
3.	Petersen SA, Murphy TP. The timing of rotator cuff repair for the restoration of function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(1):62-68.
4.	Nicholas N, Fox MG, Blankenbaker DG, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Chronic Shoulder Pain: 2022 Update. J Am Coll Radiol 2023;20:S49-S69.
5.	Subhas N, Wu F, Fox MG, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Chronic Extremity Joint Pain-Suspected Inflammatory Arthritis, Crystalline Arthritis, or Erosive Osteoarthritis: 2022 Update. J Am Coll Radiol 2023;20:S20-S32.
6.	Griffith JF, Yung PS, Antonio GE, Tsang PH, Ahuja AT, Chan KM. CT compared with arthroscopy in quantifying glenoid bone loss. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(6):1490-1493.
7.	Mahadeva D, Dias RG, Deshpande SV, Datta A, Dhillon SS, Simons AW. The reliability and reproducibility of the Neer classification system--digital radiography (PACS) improves agreement. Injury. 2011;42(4):339-342.
8.	Ozaki R, Nakagawa S, Mizuno N, Mae T, Yoneda M. Hill-sachs lesions in shoulders with traumatic anterior instability: evaluation using computed tomography with 3-dimensional reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(11):2597-2605.
9.	Kahn JH, Mehta SD. The role of post-reduction radiographs after shoulder dislocation. J Emerg Med. 2007;33(2):169-173.
10.	Emond M, Le Sage N, Lavoie A, Moore L. Refinement of the Quebec decision rule for radiography in shoulder dislocation. CJEM. 2009;11(1):36-43.
11.	Vaisman A, Villalon Montenegro IE, Tuca De Diego MJ, Valderrama Ronco J. A novel radiographic index for the diagnosis of posterior acromioclavicular joint dislocations. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(1):112-116.
12.	Foruria AM, Martinez-Catalan N, Pardos B, Larson D, Barlow J, Sanchez-Sotelo J. Classification of proximal humerus fractures according to pattern recognition is associated with high intraobserver and interobserver agreement. JSES International. 6(4):563-568, 2022 Jul.
13.	Rutten MJ, Collins JM, de Waal Malefijt MC, Kiemeney LA, Jager GJ. Unsuspected sonographic findings in patients with posttraumatic shoulder complaints. J Clin Ultrasound. 2010;38(9):457-465.
14.	Stoddart M, Pearce O, Smith J, McCann P, Sheridan B, Al-Hourani K. Proximal Humerus Fractures: Reliability of Neer Versus AO Classification on Plain Radiographs and Computed Tomography. Cureus. 12(6):e8520, 2020 Jun 09.
15.	Ropp AM, Davis DL. Scapular Fractures: What Radiologists Need to Know. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205(3):491-501.
16.	Tadros AM, Lunsjo K, Czechowski J, Corr P, Abu-Zidan FM. Usefulness of different imaging modalities in the assessment of scapular fractures caused by blunt trauma. Acta Radiol. 2007;48(1):71-75.
17.	Saragaglia D, Barthomeuf C, Banihachemi JJ. Deciphering acute shoulder trauma with normal initial X-ray: Contributions of ultrasonography and MRI. Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research. 107(5):102965, 2021 09.Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 107(5):102965, 2021 09.
18.	Gulotta LV, Lobatto D, Delos D, Coleman SH, Altchek DW. Anterior shoulder capsular tears in professional baseball players. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(8):e173-178.
19.	Nemec U, Oberleitner G, Nemec SF, et al. MRI versus radiography of acromioclavicular joint dislocation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(4):968-973.
20.	Bahrs C, Zipplies S, Ochs BG, et al. Proximal humeral fractures in children and adolescents. J Pediatr Orthop. 2009;29(3):238-242.
21.	Lee JT, Nasreddine AY, Black EM, Bae DS, Kocher MS. Posterior sternoclavicular joint injuries in skeletally immature patients. J Pediatr Orthop. 2014;34(4):369-375.
22.	Poeze M, Lenssen AF, Van Empel JM, Verbruggen JP. Conservative management of proximal humeral fractures: can poor functional outcome be related to standard transscapular radiographic evaluation? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(2):273-281.
23.	Throckmorton T, Kuhn JE. Fractures of the medial end of the clavicle. Journal of Shoulder & Elbow Surgery. 16(1):49-54, 2007 Jan-Feb.
24.	Armitage BM, Wijdicks CA, Tarkin IS, et al. Mapping of scapular fractures with three-dimensional computed tomography. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(9):2222-2228.
25.	Bozkurt M, Can F, Kirdemir V, Erden Z, Demirkale I, Basbozkurt M. Conservative treatment of scapular neck fracture: the effect of stability and glenopolar angle on clinical outcome. Injury. 2005;36(10):1176-1181.
26.	Fjalestad T, Hole MO, Blucher J, Hovden IA, Stiris MG, Stromsoe K. Rotator cuff tears in proximal humeral fractures: an MRI cohort study in 76 patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010;130(5):575-581.
27.	Delage Royle A, Balg F, Bouliane MJ, et al. Indication for Computed Tomography Scan in Shoulder Instability: Sensitivity and Specificity of Standard Radiographs to Predict Bone Defects After Traumatic Anterior Glenohumeral Instability. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 5(10):2325967117733660, 2017 Oct.
28.	Gyftopoulos S, Beltran LS, Yemin A, et al. Use of 3D MR reconstructions in the evaluation of glenoid bone loss: a clinical study. Skeletal Radiol. 2014;43(2):213-218.
29.	Oh JH, Kim JY, Choi JA, Kim WS. Effectiveness of multidetector computed tomography arthrography for the diagnosis of shoulder pathology: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging with arthroscopic correlation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010;19:14-20.
30.	Stecco A, Guenzi E, Cascone T, et al. MRI can assess glenoid bone loss after shoulder luxation: inter- and intra-individual comparison with CT. Radiol Med. 2013;118(8):1335-1343.
31.	Pavic R, Margetic P, Bensic M, Brnadic RL. Diagnostic value of US, MR and MR arthrography in shoulder instability. Injury. 2013;44 Suppl 3:S26-32.
32.	Waldt S, Burkart A, Imhoff AB, Bruegel M, Rummeny EJ, Woertler K. Anterior shoulder instability: accuracy of MR arthrography in the classification of anteroinferior labroligamentous injuries. Radiology 2005;237:578-83.
33.	Magee T. 3-T MRI of the shoulder: is MR arthrography necessary? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192:86-92.
34.	Acid S, Le Corroller T, Aswad R, Pauly V, Champsaur P. Preoperative imaging of anterior shoulder instability: diagnostic effectiveness of MDCT arthrography and comparison with MR arthrography and arthroscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;198:661-7.
35.	Foti G, Mantovani W, Catania M, et al. Evaluation of glenoid labral tears: comparison between dual-energy CT arthrography and MR arthrography of the shoulder. Radiologia Medica. 125(1):39-47, 2020 Jan.
36.	Fogerty S, King DG, Groves C, Scally A, Chandramohan M. Interobserver variation in reporting CT arthrograms of the shoulder. Eur J Radiol. 2011;80(3):811-813.
37.	Amin MF, Youssef AO. The diagnostic value of magnetic resonance arthrography of the shoulder in detection and grading of SLAP lesions: comparison with arthroscopic findings. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(9):2343-2347.
38.	Antonio GE, Griffith JF, Yu AB, Yung PS, Chan KM, Ahuja AT. First-time shoulder dislocation: High prevalence of labral injury and age-related differences revealed by MR arthrography. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26(4):983-991.
39.	Genovese E, Spano E, Castagna A, et al. MR-arthrography in superior instability of the shoulder: correlation with arthroscopy. Radiol Med. 2013;118(6):1022-1033.
40.	Iqbal HJ, Rani S, Mahmood A, Brownson P, Aniq H. Diagnostic value of MR arthrogram in SLAP lesions of the shoulder. Surgeon. 2010;8(6):303-309.
41.	Smark CT, Barlow BT, Vachon TA, Provencher MT. Arthroscopic and magnetic resonance arthrogram features of Kim's lesion in posterior shoulder instability. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(7):781-784.
42.	Jonas SC, Walton MJ, Sarangi PP. Is MRA an unnecessary expense in the management of a clinically unstable shoulder? A comparison of MRA and arthroscopic findings in 90 patients. Acta Orthop. 2012;83(3):267-270.
43.	Arirachakaran A, Boonard M, Chaijenkij K, Pituckanotai K, Prommahachai A, Kongtharvonskul J. A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test of MRA versus MRI for detection superior labrum anterior to posterior lesions type II-VII. [Review]. Skeletal Radiology. 46(2):149-160, 2017 Feb.
44.	Ajuied A, McGarvey CP, Harb Z, Smith CC, Houghton RP, Corbett SA. Diagnosis of glenoid labral tears using 3-tesla MRI vs. 3-tesla MRA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. Archives of Orthopaedic & Trauma Surgery. 138(5):699-709, 2018 May.
45.	Shafiei M, Shomal Zadeh F, Shafiee A, Soltanolkotabi M, Gee AO, Chalian M. Diagnostic performance of MRA in abduction and external rotation position in the detection of glenoid labral lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Skeletal Radiology. 51(8):1611-1621, 2022 Aug.
46.	Symanski JS, Subhas N, Babb J, Nicholson J, Gyftopoulos S. Diagnosis of Superior Labrum Anterior-to-Posterior Tears by Using MR Imaging and MR Arthrography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. [Review]. Radiology. 285(1):101-113, 2017 10.
47.	Schwartzberg R, Reuss BL, Burkhart BG, Butterfield M, Wu JY, McLean KW. High Prevalence of Superior Labral Tears Diagnosed by MRI in Middle-Aged Patients With Asymptomatic Shoulders. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 4(1):2325967115623212, 2016 Jan.
48.	Li L, Dong J, Li Q, et al. MRA improves sensitivity than MRI for the articular-sided partial-thickness rotator cuff tears. Science Progress. 104(4):368504211059976, 2021 Oct.
49.	Roy JS, Braen C, Leblond J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography, MRI and MR arthrography in the characterisation of rotator cuff disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(20):1316-1328.
50.	Al-Shawi A, Badge R, Bunker T. The detection of full thickness rotator cuff tears using ultrasound. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(7):889-892.
51.	Fotiadou AN, Vlychou M, Papadopoulos P, Karataglis DS, Palladas P, Fezoulidis IV. Ultrasonography of symptomatic rotator cuff tears compared with MR imaging and surgery. Eur J Radiol. 2008;68(1):174-179.
52.	Frei R, Chladek P, Trc T, Kopecny Z, Kautzner J. Arthroscopic evaluation of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of rotator cuff tear. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2008;10(2):111-114.
53.	de Jesus JO, Parker L, Frangos AJ, Nazarian LN. Accuracy of MRI, MR arthrography, and ultrasound in the diagnosis of rotator cuff tears: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192:1701-7.
54.	Moosmayer S, Heir S, Smith HJ. Sonography of the rotator cuff in painful shoulders performed without knowledge of clinical information: results from 58 sonographic examinations with surgical correlation. J Clin Ultrasound. 2007;35(1):20-26.
55.	Okoroha KR, Fidai MS, Tramer JS, Davis KD, Kolowich PA. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound for rotator cuff tears. Ultrasonography. 38(3):215-220, 2019 Jul.
56.	Le Corroller T, Cohen M, Aswad R, Pauly V, Champsaur P. Sonography of the painful shoulder: role of the operator's experience. Skeletal Radiol. 2008;37(11):979-986.
57.	O'Connor PJ, Rankine J, Gibbon WW, Richardson A, Winter F, Miller JH. Interobserver variation in sonography of the painful shoulder. J Clin Ultrasound. 2005;33(2):53-56.
58.	National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Committee on National Statistics; Committee on Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. In: Becker T, Chin M, Bates N, eds. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.; 2022.
59.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.