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 (807 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
The articulation between the head of the humerus and the glenoid cavity of the scapula.
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: Joint, Shoulder; Joints, Shoulder; Shoulder Joints; Glenohumeral Joint; Glenohumeral Joints; Joint, Glenohumeral; Joints, Glenohumeral; Glenoid Labrum.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Joints
Related concepts
- Humerus
- Scapula
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 24,611 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Shoulder Joint” (counts retrieved 2026-10-31). 6,081 of them (24.7%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 7,948 records.
Reviews account for 3,080 records (12.5%) and meta-analyses for 300. Randomized controlled trials number 913 (3.7%) as a share of all records on the topic.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 5,679 |
| 2000-2009 | 4,903 |
| 2010-2019 | 7,948 |
| 2020 onward | 6,081 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 3,080 | 12.5% |
| Meta-analyses | 300 | 1.2% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 913 | 3.7% |
Method: PubMed query "Shoulder Joint"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-31.
Reading the evidence in anatomy and physiology
Anatomy describes how body structures are built and physiology describes how they normally work, so most findings here are descriptive or mechanistic rather than evidence about treatment. Much of what is known comes from dissection, imaging, tissue studies and experiments in animals, and measurements in healthy volunteers can differ from those in people with disease or at different ages. Normal ranges vary between individuals and populations. Check whether a result was measured in people or in another species, the age and health of the participants, and the method used.
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 / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Future of Clinical Active Shoulder Range of Motion Assessment, Best Practice, and Its Challenges: Narrative Review | 2025 | Review article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 6 | cc by PMID 39943306 · DOI · PMC11820973 |
| Comparative efficacy of supra-scapular nerve block, posterior shoulder capsule hydro-dilatation, and shoulder interval hydro-dilatation in managing shoulder adhesive capsulitis | 2025 | Randomized controlled trial Design not recorded in structured metadata | 6 | cc by PMID 40533690 · DOI · PMC12289789 |
| Soft tissue constraints on joint mobility in the avian shoulder | 2025 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 5 | cc by PMID 40995780 · DOI · PMC12669841 |
| Breast cancer related lymphedema and shoulder mobility following radiotherapy | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 5 | cc by PMID 41123630 · DOI · PMC12872703 |
The Future of Clinical Active Shoulder Range of Motion Assessment, Best Practice, and Its Challenges: Narrative Review [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Optimising outcomes after shoulder interventions requires objective shoulder range of motion (ROM) assessments.
- Closing excerpt
- Although 3D motion capture, per the International Society of Biomechanics recommendations, remains the gold standard, advancements in LiDAR/depth sensing, smartphone cameras, and deep learning show promise for reliable ROM assessments in clinical settings.
- 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 (159 words)
Optimising outcomes after shoulder interventions requires objective shoulder range of motion (ROM) assessments. This narrative review examines video-based pose technologies and markerless motion capture, focusing on their clinical application for shoulder ROM assessment. Camera pose-based methods offer objective ROM measurements, though the accuracy varies due to the differences in gold standards, anatomical definitions, and deep learning techniques. Despite some biases, the studies report a high consistency, emphasising that methods should not be used interchangeably if they do not agree with each other. Smartphone cameras perform well in capturing 2D planar movements but struggle with that of rotational movements and forward flexion, particularly when thoracic compensations are involved. Proper camera positioning, orientation, and distance are key, highlighting the importance of standardised protocols in mobile phone-based ROM evaluations. Although 3D motion capture, per the International Society of Biomechanics recommendations, remains the gold standard, advancements in LiDAR/depth sensing, smartphone cameras, and deep learning show promise for reliable ROM assessments in clinical settings.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 39943306 · DOI · PMC11820973
Comparative efficacy of supra-scapular nerve block, posterior shoulder capsule hydro-dilatation, and shoulder interval hydro-dilatation in managing shoulder adhesive capsulitis [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Aim of workThis study aimed to compare the effects of supra-scapular nerve block, posterior intra-articular hydro-dilatation, and hydro-dilatation of the shoulder interval, in terms of improving pain, function, and range of motion in patients with adhesive capsulitis.
- Closing excerpt
- Suprascapular nerve block is recommended for patients with severe pain, while hydro-dilatation of the shoulder interval had less lasting benefits.
- 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 (252 words)
Aim of workThis study aimed to compare the effects of supra-scapular nerve block, posterior intra-articular hydro-dilatation, and hydro-dilatation of the shoulder interval, in terms of improving pain, function, and range of motion in patients with adhesive capsulitis.Patients and methodsA total of 50 patients diagnosed with adhesive capsulitis were randomly divided into three groups. The first group received a suprascapular nerve block, the second group underwent posterior intra-articular hydro-dilatation, and the third group underwent shoulder interval hydro-dilatation. Patient assessment was conducted using visual analogue scale for pain, shoulder pain and disability index, and measurements of range of motion.ResultsGroup 1 experienced rapid and sustained pain reduction (p-value ConclusionAlthough no significant differences were observed among the three groups, we recommend posterior intra-articular hydro-dilatation as it yielded the most promising and sustainable outcomes as regard pain reduction and range of motion improvement. Suprascapular nerve block is recommended for patients with prominent pain symptoms. Rotator interval hydro-dilatation is the least recommended intervention, being the most challenging and painful technique, and as it demonstrated a less sustained effect on range of motion. Key Points • This study aimed to find the best treatment modality for adhesive capsulitis through comparing the effects of suprascapular nerve block, posterior intra-articular hydro-dilatation, and hydro-dilatation of the shoulder interval. • Although no significant differences were found among three modalities, posterior intra-articular hydro-dilatation showed the best long-term outcomes for pain and range of motion. Suprascapular nerve block is recommended for patients with severe pain, while hydro-dilatation of the shoulder interval had less lasting benefits.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 40533690 · DOI · PMC12289789
Soft tissue constraints on joint mobility in the avian shoulder [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Joints and their surrounding soft tissues facilitate and restrict vertebrate skeletal motion.
- Closing excerpt
- Our approach enables more confident estimates of functional joint mobility in both extant and extinct vertebrates and thereby stands to improve inferences of behaviour and musculoskeletal function in the vertebrate fossil record.
- 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 (201 words)
Joints and their surrounding soft tissues facilitate and restrict vertebrate skeletal motion. Measures of maximal joint mobility provide insight into articular function and its limits on potential joint motion and thereby behaviour. In extinct vertebrates the reconstruction of joint mobility permits us to decipher shifts in locomotor evolution. Such measurements are generally limited to studies of osteological joint mobility. However, only a subset of osteologically feasible poses are biologically feasible because true joint mobility is limited by soft tissues, such as ligaments, that are seldom preserved in the fossil record. To address this issue, we implemented an in silico model to simulate avian glenohumeral (shoulder) movement and the constraints imposed by six ligaments on its joint mobility. We evaluated our in silico model of the partridge shoulder joint with measured ex vivo shoulder mobility using X-ray reconstruction of moving morphology (XROMM). Our results indicate that modelling ligamentous constraints is integral to accurately quantifying shoulder function owing to the role of ligaments in maintaining articular contact during complex glenohumeral motion. Our approach enables more confident estimates of functional joint mobility in both extant and extinct vertebrates and thereby stands to improve inferences of behaviour and musculoskeletal function in the vertebrate fossil record.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 40995780 · DOI · PMC12669841
Breast cancer related lymphedema and shoulder mobility following radiotherapy [4]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- PurposeLymphedema of the arm and reduced shoulder mobility are common complications of breast cancer treatment.
- Closing excerpt
- ConclusionIn our cohort of patients, irradiation of the ALTJ region is associated with the occurrence of clinically-assessed lymphedema, while irradiation of the humeral head is not linked to limited mobility of the shoulder after breast cancer treatment.
- 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 (195 words)
PurposeLymphedema of the arm and reduced shoulder mobility are common complications of breast cancer treatment. We aim to establish whether the radiation dose received by the area of the axillary lateral thoracic artery vessel juncture (ALTJ) and the shoulder joint-affect the development of the mentioned side effects.MethodsIn this retrospective study, 298 patients with early breast cancer treated surgically and with adjuvant radiation therapy, were included. Clinical data from the prospective database were used. Physiotherapists evaluated lymphedema and shoulder mobility at diagnosis, 6 and 12 months afterwards. The ALTJ, humeral head, and humeral head with a safety margin were delineated on a CT scan, and irradiation parameters were obtained from dose-volume histograms.ResultsMultivariate analysis confirmed a correlation between higher mean (Dmean) and near-minimum (D98) radiation doses received by ALTJ and the incidence of lymphedema 12 months post-diagnosis (p = 0.016 and p = 0.002, respectively). No significant association was found between the radiation dose to the humeral head and reduced mobility.ConclusionIn our cohort of patients, irradiation of the ALTJ region is associated with the occurrence of clinically-assessed lymphedema, while irradiation of the humeral head is not linked to limited mobility of the shoulder after breast cancer treatment.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41123630 · DOI · PMC12872703
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 Physical examination tests of the shoulder: a systematic review with meta-analysis of individual tests [5]
- Research article A comparison of pain, strength, range of motion, and functional outcomes after hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis of the shoulder. A systematic review and meta-analysis [6]
- Research article A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and patient-reported outcomes following two procedures for recurrent traumatic anterior instability of the shoulder: Latarjet procedure vs. Bankart repair [7]
- Research article Exercise interventions for upper-limb dysfunction due to breast cancer treatment [8]
- Research article Is arthroscopic surgery for stabilisation of chronic shoulder instability as effective as open surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis of 62 studies including 3044 arthroscopic operations [9]
- Research article Posterior Instability of the Shoulder: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical Outcomes [10]
References
- van den Hoorn W, Fabre A, Nardese G, Su EY, Cutbush K, Gupta A, et al.. The Future of Clinical Active Shoulder Range of Motion Assessment, Best Practice, and Its Challenges: Narrative Review. . 2025. PMID 39943306 · DOI · PMC11820973
- Elsaman A, Abdelmageed S, Daifallah OS. Comparative efficacy of supra-scapular nerve block, posterior shoulder capsule hydro-dilatation, and shoulder interval hydro-dilatation in managing shoulder adhesive capsulitis. . 2025. PMID 40533690 · DOI · PMC12289789
- Demuth OE, Hutchinson JR, La Barbera V, Warner SE, Field DJ. Soft tissue constraints on joint mobility in the avian shoulder. . 2025. PMID 40995780 · DOI · PMC12669841
- Jarm T, Besic N, Arnez RC, But-Hadzic J, Ratosa I. Breast cancer related lymphedema and shoulder mobility following radiotherapy. . 2026. PMID 41123630 · DOI · PMC12872703
- Hegedus EJ, Goode A, Campbell S, Morin A, Tamaddoni M, Moorman CT, et al.. Physical examination tests of the shoulder: a systematic review with meta-analysis of individual tests. Br J Sports Med. 2008. PMID 17720798 · DOI
- Bryant D, Litchfield R, Sandow M, Gartsman GM, Guyatt G, Kirkley A. A comparison of pain, strength, range of motion, and functional outcomes after hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis of the shoulder. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005. PMID 16140808 · DOI
- An VV, Sivakumar BS, Phan K, Trantalis J. A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and patient-reported outcomes following two procedures for recurrent traumatic anterior instability of the shoulder: Latarjet procedure vs. Bankart repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016. PMID 26809355 · DOI
- McNeely ML, Campbell K, Ospina M, Rowe BH, Dabbs K, Klassen TP, et al.. Exercise interventions for upper-limb dysfunction due to breast cancer treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010. PMID 20556760 · DOI · PMC12861582
- Hobby J, Griffin D, Dunbar M, Boileau P. Is arthroscopic surgery for stabilisation of chronic shoulder instability as effective as open surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis of 62 studies including 3044 arthroscopic operations. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007. PMID 17905956 · DOI
- DeLong JM, Jiang K, Bradley JP. Posterior Instability of the Shoulder: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical Outcomes. Am J Sports Med. 2015. PMID 25862038 · DOI
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 2026-10-31.
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.