ArticleMuscles, ligaments and tendons journal
Chondrocytes treated with different shock wave devices.
Article in Muscles, ligaments and tendons journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on functional ability in grade IV knee osteoarthritis - a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- The effect of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on the treatment of moderate to severe knee osteoarthritis and cartilage lesion.Medicine · 2019Trial
- Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy (ESWT) vs. Exercise in Thumb Osteoarthritis (SWEX-TO): Prospective Clinical Trial at 6 Months.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Effect of Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation in Erosive Hand Osteoarthritis: Results from a Pilot Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShock wave treatment is used for several orthopedic diseases and there are different devices available. Until now, there have been no experimental studies on the effects of these different generators.
methodsWe carried out an experimental study to compare the effects of three focused generators (electro-magnetic, piezoelectric and electro-hydraulic) as well as a radial generator on healthy and osteoarthritis chondrocytes.
resultsBy the analysis of our results, we may exclude significant differences between the different generators, even though there is a greater action specificity for electro-magnetic and piezoelectric generators.
conclusionsThe smaller size of the focus of the latter two generators guarantees a greater concentration of energy in the target. The biological effect of the increase of IL-10 and reduction of both N-Cadherin and B-Catenin in chondrocytes in healthy subjects and those affected by osteoarthritis confirms the therapeutic potential of ESWT in cartilage diseases, such as osteoarthritis. In clinical practice it is important to introduce the parameter of total energy. This allows us to standardize the treatment and to manage the variability related to the different types of device and size of the focus. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IIb.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.