Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26509573›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Radial Shock Wave Devices Generate Cavitation.

Nikolaus B M Császár, Nicholas B Angstman, Stefan Milz, Christoph M Sprecher, Philippe Kobel, Mohamed Farhat, John P Furia, Christoph Schmitz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Behavioral Changes inJournal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

8 authors.

Nikolaus B M CsászárExtracorporeal Shock Wave Research Unit, Department of Anatomy II, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Nicholas B AngstmanExtracorporeal Shock Wave Research Unit, Department of Anatomy II, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Stefan MilzExtracorporeal Shock Wave Research Unit, Department of Anatomy II, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Christoph M SprecherAO Research Institute Davos, Davos, Switzerland.
Philippe KobelHydraulic Machines Laboratory, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Mohamed FarhatHydraulic Machines Laboratory, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
John P FuriaSUN Orthopaedic Group, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Christoph SchmitzExtracorporeal Shock Wave Research Unit, Department of Anatomy II, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConflicting reports in the literature have raised the question whether radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy (rESWT) devices and vibrating massage devices have similar energy signatures and, hence, cause similar bioeffects in treated tissues. METHODS AND

findingsWe used laser fiber optic probe hydrophone (FOPH) measurements, high-speed imaging and x-ray film analysis to compare fundamental elements of the energy signatures of two rESWT devices (Swiss DolorClast; Electro Medical Systems, Nyon, Switzerland; D-Actor 200; Storz Medical, Tägerwillen, Switzerland) and a vibrating massage device (Vibracare; G5/General Physiotherapy, Inc., Earth City, MO, USA). To assert potential bioeffects of these treatment modalities we investigated the influence of rESWT and vibrating massage devices on locomotion ability of Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) worms.

resultsFOPH measurements demonstrated that both rESWT devices generated acoustic waves with comparable pressure and energy flux density. Furthermore, both rESWT devices generated cavitation as evidenced by high-speed imaging and caused mechanical damage on the surface of x-ray film. The vibrating massage device did not show any of these characteristics. Moreover, locomotion ability of C. elegans was statistically significantly impaired after exposure to radial extracorporeal shock waves but was unaffected after exposure of worms to the vibrating massage device.

conclusionsThe results of the present study indicate that both energy signature and bioeffects of rESWT devices are fundamentally different from those of vibrating massage devices. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Prior ESWT studies have shown that tissues treated with sufficient quantities of acoustic sound waves undergo cavitation build-up, mechanotransduction, and ultimately, a biological alteration that "kick-starts" the healing response. Due to their different treatment indications and contra-indications rESWT devices cannot be equated to vibrating massage devices and should be used with due caution in clinical practice.

Indexed as

High-Energy Shock WavesAnimalsCaenorhabditis elegansFiber Optic TechnologyLocomotionPressureSoundTime FactorsX-Ray Film

Identifiers

PMID26509573
PMCPMC4625004

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.