↓ Skip to main content

Comparision of the effectiveness of ESWT and ultrasound treatments in myofascial pain syndrome: randomized, sham-controlled study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Physical Therapy Science, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparision of the effectiveness of ESWT and ultrasound treatments in myofascial pain syndrome: randomized, sham-controlled study
Published in
Journal of Physical Therapy Science, March 2018
DOI 10.1589/jpts.30.448
Pubmed ID
Authors

Semra Aktürk, Arzu Kaya, Derya Çetintaş, Gürkan Akgöl, Arif Gülkesen, Gül Ayden Kal, Tülin Güçer

Abstract

[Purpose] The purpose of this study is to compare effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT), ultrasound (US) and sham ESWT in the treatment of myofascial pain syndrome (MPS). [Subjects and Methods] Sixty MPS patients aged 18-60 years were included in the study. The patients were randomized equally into 3 groups. Group 1 received ESWT for 4 session with 3 day-intervals. Group 2 received 4 sessions of sham ESWT. US was applied to Group 3 for 10 sessions. All patients were recommended an exercise program. The patients were evaluated before-post and 6 weeks after treatment. Measurements were made using pressure pain threshold (PPT), pain score (PS) and visual analogue scale (VAS). Patients were evaluated by using SF-36 and HADS (hospital anxiety and depression scale). [Results] A significant posttreatment difference was found in VAS, PPT and SF-36 subparameters in group 1. In group 2, a significant difference was not found in any parameter. In group 3, a significant difference was detected in parameters of VAS and PPT. A significant difference was found between groups 1 and 2 as for subtitles of PPT, VAS, SF-36. [Conclusion] These results suggest that ESWT is as effective as US. ESWT and US are significantly more effective than sham ESWT.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 15%
Other 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 22 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 14%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Unspecified 3 5%
Sports and Recreations 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 23 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2021.
All research outputs
#3,416,577
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Physical Therapy Science
#231
of 1,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,748
of 346,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Physical Therapy Science
#10
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,732 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 346,135 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.