Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29675986›Full record

SynthesisInternational wound journal2018

Efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for acute and chronic soft tissue wounds: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Li Zhang, Xiao-Bing Fu, Shuo Chen, Zhan-Bo Zhao, Christoph Schmitz, Chang-Shui Weng

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International wound journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Li ZhangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Nan Lou of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xiao-Bing FuKey Laboratory of Wound Repair and Regeneration of PLA, College of Life Sciences, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Shuo ChenDepartment of Medical Information, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Zhan-Bo ZhaoSchool of Software and Microelectronics, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Christoph SchmitzExtracorporeal Shock Wave Research Unit, Chair of Neuroanatomy, Institute of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4065-1241
Chang-Shui WengDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Nan Lou of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Chinese PLA General Hospital · CNMax Planck Institute of Psychiatry · DEPeking University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and conventional wound therapy (CWT) for acute and chronic soft tissue wounds. All English-language articles on ESWT for acute and chronic soft tissue wounds indexed in PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Library, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and HealthSTAR published prior to June 2017 were included, as well as corresponding articles cited in reference lists of related review articles. The methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's "risk of bias" tool. Study design, subject demographics, wound aetiology, treatment protocols, assessment indexes, and follow-up duration were extracted. The fixed or random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled effect sizes according to studies' heterogeneity. Ten randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 473 patients were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that ESWT statistically significantly increased the healing rate of acute and chronic soft tissue wounds 2.73-fold (odds ratio, OR = 3.73, 95% confidence interval, CI: 2.30-6.04, P < .001) and improved wound-healing area percentage by 30.45% (Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) = 30.45; 95% CI: 23.79-37.12; P < .001). ESWT reduced wound-healing time by 3 days (SMD = -2.86, 95% CI:-3.78 to -1.95, P < .001) for acute soft tissue wounds and 19 days (SMD = -19.11, 95% CI: -23.74 to -14.47, P < .001) for chronic soft tissue wounds and the risk of wound infection by 53% (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.24-0.92, P = .03) when compared with CWT alone. Serious adverse effects were not reported. ESWT showed better therapeutic effects on acute and chronic soft tissue wounds compared with CWT alone. However, higher-quality and well-controlled RCTs are needed to further assess the role of ESWT for acute and chronic soft tissue wounds.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChronic DiseaseExtracorporeal Shockwave TherapyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSoft Tissue InjuriesTreatment OutcomeWound Healingmeta-analysisrehabilitationshock wave therapywound healingwounds

Identifiers

PMID29675986
PMCPMC7949564
OpenAlexW2801253560

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.