ArticleMedicine2019
Effect of extracorporeal shock wave for tennis elbow: A protocol for systematic review of randomized controlled trial.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious clinical studies have reported that extracorporeal shock wave (EPSW) is an effective treatment for patients with tennis elbow (TE). However, no systematic review has assessed its effectiveness and safety for the treatment of TE.
methodsIn this systematic review, we will search the potential eligible literature from the following electronic databases: Central, Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and CNKI from inception to the present. All literatures of randomized controlled trials of EPSW for TE will be considered without language restrictions. Two reviewers will independently select the studies, extract the data, and evaluate the methodology quality. All disagreements between those 2 reviewers will be resolved by a third reviewer involved through discussion. Outcome data will be pooled by RevMan 5.3 software if the heterogeneity is reasonable. Reporting bias will also be conducted if more than 10 included studies can be reached.
resultsThis systematic review will evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of EPSW for TE.
conclusionThe findings of this study will summarize the current evidence of EPSW on TE outcomes and may provide guidance for both clinical practice and further studies. DISSEMINATION AND ETHICS: This systematic review does not need ethical approval, because it does not utilize the individual patient data. Its findings are expected to publish in peer-reviewed journals. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019119687.
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.