↓ Skip to main content

Clinical effectiveness of multi-wavelength photobiomodulation therapy as an adjunct to extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the management of plantar fasciitis: a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Lasers in Medical Science, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 Mendeley
Title
Clinical effectiveness of multi-wavelength photobiomodulation therapy as an adjunct to extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the management of plantar fasciitis: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Lasers in Medical Science, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10103-018-2632-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary Kamal Nassif Takla, Soheir Shethata Rezk-Allah Rezk

Abstract

The goal of our study was to investigate the cumulative effect of combining medium-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT), as well as to compare between their relative effectiveness in the management of plantar fasciitis (PF). One hundred twenty participants with chronic PF, more than 6 months with failure to respond to conservative treatment, were randomly assigned into four equal groups. Participants received either ESWT with PBMT, ESWT (once a week), PBMT (three times a week), or sham-PBMT (three times a week) for three consecutive weeks. A home exercise program was also included for all four groups. Outcome measures included pressure pain threshold (PPT), visual analogue scale (VAS), and functional foot index disability subscale (FFI-d) that were collected prior to the first treatment session and at the end of the 3-week treatment period, as well as at a follow-up session, 12 weeks after the final treatment session. There were statistically significant improvements in post-intervention and follow-up PPT, VAS, and FFI-d values in all treatment groups (P < 0.0001). As for the sham-PBMT, no significant difference was found between the pre-, post-intervention and follow-up values (P > 0.05). Bonferroni correction test revealed that there was a significant difference between all the four groups in PPT, VAS, and FFI-d values (P < 0.0001). All active treatment groups maintained the treatment effect at the 12-week follow-up. Both ESWT and PBMT were effective in increasing PPT values, decreasing pain and increasing functional ability. Additionally, application of PBMT after ESWT was shown to be superior over ESWT and PBMT alone, and ESWT was superior over PBMT in terms of reducing pain sensitivity and increasing function.Level of Evidence II.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 129 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 12%
Student > Master 14 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Unspecified 9 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 6%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 54 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 23 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 18%
Unspecified 9 7%
Sports and Recreations 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 57 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 March 2020.
All research outputs
#13,625,854
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from Lasers in Medical Science
#532
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,540
of 336,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lasers in Medical Science
#9
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 336,158 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.