Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31806944›Full record

Trial reportClinical interventions in aging2019

The Effectiveness Of Radial Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy In Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Prospective, Randomized, Single-Blinded Pilot Study.

Karolina Walewicz, Jakub Taradaj, Katarzyna Rajfur, Kuba Ptaszkowski, Michał Tomasz Kuszewski, Mirosław Sopel, Robert Dymarek

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical interventions in aging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Efficacy of Focused Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Prospective Randomized 3-Month Follow-Up Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2022
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. [Shockwave therapy for low back pain].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Karolina WalewiczFaculty of Physiotherapy, Opole Medical School, Opole, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-4272-8978
Jakub TaradajInstitute of Physiotherapy and Health Sciences, Academy of Physical Education, Katowice, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-1796-5832
Katarzyna RajfurFaculty of Physiotherapy, Opole Medical School, Opole, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-0310-6869
Kuba PtaszkowskiDepartment of Physiotherapy, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-5690-5226
Michał Tomasz KuszewskiInstitute of Physiotherapy and Health Sciences, Academy of Physical Education, Katowice, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-9569-6017
Mirosław SopelDepartment of Nervous System Diseases, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-9851-2423
Robert DymarekDepartment of Nervous System Diseases, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-2806-1775
Wroclaw Medical University · PLPublic Higher Medical Professional School in Opole · PLUniversity of Manitoba · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis prospective, randomized and single-blinded study assesses the influence of radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy (rESWT) in patients with low back pain (LBP).

methodsA total of 52 patients with LBP were enrolled in the study, out of which a homogeneous group of 40 patients with mean age of 53.45±4.9 years was included. Patients were randomized into group A (n=20) treated with rESWT (2000 pulses; 2.5 bars; 5 Hz, 7 mins) performed twice a week for five weeks (10 sessions) and stabilization training, as well as group B (n=20) treated with sham rESWT and stabilization training. To analyze the therapeutic progress, the following tests were performed (before and after therapy; 1 and 3 months follow-up) to assess pain and functional efficiency: (1) Visual Analog Scale (VAS), (2) Laitinen Pain Scale (LPS), and (3) Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).

resultsThe control group had a statistically significant advantage over the rESWT group (4.4 vs. 3.1 points on the VAS; p=0.039). However, in long-term observations, group A gradually experienced more pain relief than group B (2.7 vs. 3.5 points, p>0.05, at one month and 2.0 vs. 4.4 points at three months after treatment; p<0.0001). Similar findings can be seen in the analysis of changes in pain sensations measured with the LPS. The functional state (ODI) was better in rESWT group, especially in follow-up observation (9.3 vs. 14.6 points, p=0.033, at one month and 9.3 vs. 17.8 points, p=0.004, at three months after treatment).

conclusionThe rESWT combined with stabilization training is particularly effective in the long-term and achieves a stable beneficial effect for patients with LBP. The use of rESWT has a significant long-term influence on the reduction of pain and the improvement of the general functional state in relation to the conventional motor improvement program.

Indexed as

AdultExtracorporeal Shockwave TherapyFemaleHumansLow Back PainMaleMiddle AgedPain ManagementPain MeasurementPilot ProjectsProspective StudiesSingle-Blind MethodTreatment OutcomeESWTfunctional statelow back painphysical therapyshock waves

Identifiers

PMID31806944
PMCPMC6857735
OpenAlexW2982643357

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.