Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20932272›Full record

Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2010

Improved healing response in delayed unions of the tibia with low-intensity pulsed ultrasound: results of a randomized sham-controlled trial.

Markus D Schofer, Jon E Block, Julia Aigner, Andreas Schmelz

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 125 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. [Advances of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound for treatment of musculoskeletal disorders in the past decade].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2025
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Markus D SchoferDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Hospital Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35043 Marburg, Germany.
Jon E Block
Julia Aigner
Andreas Schmelz
Universität Ulm · DEPhilipps University of Marburg · DEUniversity of San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe compared the healing response of tibial delayed unions between subjects treated with low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) (n = 51) and subjects treated with a sham device (n = 50). Fracture age was ≥ 4 months in all cases. Study personnel and participants were blinded to random treatment assignment throughout the study.

methodsThis multi-center randomized sham-controlled trial was undertaken at six hospitals in Germany. Adult patients who had sustained a tibial shaft fracture that subsequently showed inadequate progress toward healing (i.e., delayed union) were enrolled and randomized to receive either LIPUS (Exogen 2000/2000+, Smith & Nephew GmbH, Schenefeld, Germany) or an identical nonoperative sham device. The daily treatment duration was 20 minutes, for a period of 16 weeks. Subjects randomly assigned to active treatment had the ultrasound pressure wave signal set at the following parameters: 1.5 MHz frequency, 1 kHz repetition rate, 200 μs pulse duration, 30 mW/cm2 spatial intensity. Progress toward healing was estimated from changes in bone mineral density (BMD) and gap area as determined from computed tomography scans. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted using a multiple imputation methodology.

resultsBased on log-transformed data, mean improvement in BMD was 1.34 (90% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 1.57) times greater for LIPUS-treated subjects compared to sham (p = 0.002). A mean reduction in bone gap area also favored LIPUS treatment (p = 0.014).

conclusionsThese findings demonstrate significantly greater progress toward bone healing after LIPUS treatment compared to no LIPUS treatment in subjects with established delayed unions of the tibia.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedBone RegenerationFemaleFracture HealingHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsRadiographyTibial FracturesTime FactorsUltrasonic TherapyYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID20932272
PMCPMC2958986
OpenAlexW2038211187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.