↓ Skip to main content

No difference in effectiveness between focused and radial shockwave therapy for treating patellar tendinopathy: a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, May 2013
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 (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
257 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
No difference in effectiveness between focused and radial shockwave therapy for treating patellar tendinopathy: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, May 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00167-013-2522-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

H. van der Worp, J. Zwerver, M. Hamstra, I. van den Akker‐Scheek, R. L. Diercks

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of focused shockwave therapy (FSWT) and radial shockwave therapy (RSWT) for treating patellar tendinopathy. METHODS: Patients were randomized into two groups. One group received three sessions of FSWT, and the other group received three sessions of RSWT. Both groups also received an eccentric training programme. Follow-up measurements took place 1, 4, 7 and 14 weeks after the final shockwave treatment. The primary outcome measure was the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Patella (VISA-P) questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures were pain during ADL, sports activities and the decline squat. RESULTS: Forty-three subjects (57 tendons) were included in the study. Twenty-one subjects (31 tendons) received FSWT, and 22 subjects (26 tendons) received RSWT. Both groups improved significantly on the VISA-P score, but there were no differences in improvement between the FSWT group (15 points on the VISA-P) and the RSWT group (9.6 points, n.s.). This was also the case for the secondary outcome measures. CONCLUSION: There were no statistically significant differences in effectiveness between FSWT and RSWT. It is therefore not possible to recommend one treatment over the other on grounds of outcome. Both groups improved significantly, although it is questionable whether this difference is clinically relevant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

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 257 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 253 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 18%
Student > Bachelor 44 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 7%
Researcher 13 5%
Student > Postgraduate 13 5%
Other 47 18%
Unknown 78 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 42 16%
Sports and Recreations 35 14%
Neuroscience 6 2%
Unspecified 6 2%
Other 22 9%
Unknown 89 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 September 2014.
All research outputs
#4,143,908
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
#464
of 2,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,796
of 195,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
#7
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 195,009 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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.