↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for knee tendinopathies and other soft tissue disorders: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, August 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 (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
246 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
Efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for knee tendinopathies and other soft tissue disorders: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12891-018-2204-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chun-De Liao, Guo-Min Xie, Jau-Yih Tsauo, Hung-Chou Chen, Tsan-Hon Liou

Abstract

Extracorporeal shock-wave therapy (ESWT), which can be divided into radial shock-wave therapy (RaSWT) and focused shock-wave therapy (FoSWT), has been widely used in clinical practice for managing orthopedic conditions. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical efficacy of ESWT for knee soft tissue disorders (KSTDs) and compare the efficacy of different shock-wave types, energy levels, and intervention durations. We performed a comprehensive search of online databases and search engines without restrictions on the publication year or language. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the efficacy of ESWT for KSTDs and included them in a meta-analysis and risk of bias assessment. The pooled effect sizes of ESWT were estimated by computing odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the treatment success rate (TSR) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs for pain reduction (i.e., the difference in pain relief, which was the change in pain from baseline to the end of RCTs between treatment and control groups) and for restoration of knee range of motion (ROM). We included 19 RCTs, all of which were of high or medium methodological quality and had a Physiotherapy Evidence Database score of ≥5/10. In general, ESWT had overall significant effects on the TSR (OR: 3.36, 95% CI: 1.84-6.12, P < 0.0001), pain reduction (SMD: - 1.49, 95% CI: - 2.11 to - 0.87, P < 0.00001), and ROM restoration (SMD: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.43-2.09, P < 0.00001). Subgroup analyses revealed that FoSWT and RaSWT applied for a long period (≥1 month) had significant effects on pain reduction, with the corresponding SMDs being - 3.13 (95% CI: - 5.70 to - 0.56; P = 0.02) and - 1.80 (95% CI: - 2.52 to - 1.08; P < 0.00001), respectively. Low-energy FoSWT may have greater efficacy for the TSR than high-energy FoSWT, whereas the inverse result was observed for RaSWT. The ESWT exerts an overall effect on the TSR, pain reduction, and ROM restoration in patients with KSTDs. Shock-wave types and application levels have different contributions to treatment efficacy for KSTDs, which must be investigated further for optimizing these treatments in clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 246 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 246 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 37 15%
Student > Master 32 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 8%
Researcher 12 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 4%
Other 40 16%
Unknown 94 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 18%
Sports and Recreations 19 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 3%
Unspecified 5 2%
Other 20 8%
Unknown 98 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 25 July 2022.
All research outputs
#3,202,749
of 25,459,177 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#617
of 4,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,737
of 342,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#16
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,459,177 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,420 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 342,181 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 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.