Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30426211›Full record

SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2019

Comparison of efficacy of shock-wave therapy versus corticosteroids in plantar fasciitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Yuan Xiong, Qipeng Wu, Bobin Mi, Wu Zhou, Yi Liu, Jing Liu, Hang Xue, Liangcong Hu, Adriana C Panayi, Guohui Liu

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

Synthesis in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Yuan XiongDepartment of Orthopedics, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China.
Qipeng WuDepartment of Orthopedics, Pu'ai Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China.
Bobin MiDepartment of Orthopedics, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China.
Wu ZhouDepartment of Orthopedics, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China.
Yi LiuDepartment of Orthopedics, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China.
Jing LiuDepartment of Orthopedics, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China.
Hang XueDepartment of Orthopedics, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China.
Liangcong HuDepartment of Orthopedics, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China.
Adriana C PanayiThe division of Plastic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Guohui LiuDepartment of Orthopedics, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China. liuguohui@medmail.com.cn.
Huazhong University of Science and Technology · CNUnion Hospital · CNHarvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCorticosteroid (CS) injections have been proven to be effective in ameliorating symptoms of plantar fasciitis. Shock-wave (SW) therapy is another common treatment of plantar fasciitis, and several meta-analyses have documented its advantages when compared to placebo treatment. Despite this, few studies have focused on comparing the use of CS and SW in the treatment of plantar fasciitis. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to assess whether SW is superior to CS in managing plantar fasciitis, both in terms of ameliorating pain as well as improving functionality.

methodsA systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify relevant articles that were published in Pubmed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, SpringerLink, Clinical Trials.gov and OVID from the databases' inception to July 2018. All studies comparing the efficacy of SW and CS in terms of pain levels and functionality improvement were included. Data on the two primary outcomes were collected and analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3.

resultsSix studies were included in the current meta-analysis. A significant difference in VAS score (MD = - 0.96, Cl - 1.28 to - 0.63, P < 0.00001, I

conclusionsThe clinical relevance of the present study is that both SW and CS were effective and successful in relieving pain and improving self-reported function in the treatment of plantar fasciitis at 3 months. Although inter-group differences were not significant, the VAS score was better improved in the SW group, highlighting that shock-wave therapy may be a better alternative for the management of chronic plantar fasciitis.

Indexed as

Extracorporeal Shockwave TherapyAdrenal Cortex HormonesAnti-Inflammatory AgentsFasciitis, PlantarHumansPainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeAdrenal Cortex HormonesAnti-Inflammatory AgentsCorticosteroidIntra-articularPlantar fasciitisShock-wave

Identifiers

PMID30426211
PMCPMC6420882
OpenAlexW2900872662

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.