Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23666379›Full record

Trial reportKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2014

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

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

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05853029 (Combined Shockwave Therapy Versus Focused Shockwave Therapy in Patients With Lateral Epicondylitis), which is not on this map. Cited by 29 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05853029 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Combined Shockwave Therapy Versus Focused Shockwave Therapy in Patients With Lateral Epicondylitis

TypeinterventionalSponsorMennallah Ahmed Mohamed Anwar ElgendyRan2023 to 2024Enrolled60ConditionsEpicondylitisArmsCombined shockwave therapy & conventional therapy , focused shockwave therapy& conventional therapy , conventional therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  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. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Rehabilitation After Gluteus Medius and Minimus Treatment.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2022
    Article
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

5 authors.

H van der WorpCenter for Sports Medicine, University Center for Sport, Exercise and Health, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, PO BOX 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands, h.van.der.worp@umcg.nl.
J Zwerver
M Hamstra
I van den Akker-Scheek
R L Diercks

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of focused shockwave therapy (FSWT) and radial shockwave therapy (RSWT) for treating patellar tendinopathy.

methodsPatients 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.

resultsForty-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.

conclusionThere 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.

Indexed as

AdultAthletic InjuriesFemaleGlucocorticoidsHigh-Energy Shock WavesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatellar LigamentSingle-Blind MethodTendinopathyTreatment OutcomeGlucocorticoids

Identifiers

PMID23666379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.