ArticleMedicine2019
A pilot study of ultrasound-guided acupotomy for the treatment of frozen shoulder.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of Research Trends in Ultrasound-Guided Acupuncture and Dry-Needling: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Acupuncture management for the acute frozen shoulder: A case report.Clinical case reports · 2021Article
- Current concepts of natural course and in management of frozen shoulder: A clinical overview.Orthopedic reviews · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study retrospectively analyzed the feasible effectiveness of ultrasound-guided acupotomy (USGAP) for the treatment of frozen shoulder (FS). A total of 36 patients with FS were analyzed in this retrospective study. All 36 patients received extracorporeal shock-wave therapy (ESWT). In addition, 18 of them also underwent USGAP intervention and were assigned to a treatment group, while the other 18 patients did not receive such intervention and were assigned to a control group. The primary efficacy endpoint was pain intensity, as measured by the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). The secondary efficacy endpoint was assessed by the score of shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI). Furthermore, the adverse events were also documented during the treatment period. All efficacy endpoints were measured after the treatment. After treatment, patients who received USGAP exerted better efficacy endpoints in pain relief, as measured by NRS scale (P < .01), and shoulder disorders, as evaluated by SPADI (P < .01), than subjects who did not receive USGAP. Additionally, no adverse events occurred in either group. The results of this study indicated that USGAP may be used for the treatment of FS effectively. More studies are still needed to warrant the present results.
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.