ArticleMicroorganisms2020
Radial Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Against
Article in Microorganisms, 2020. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extracorporeal shockwave therapy in plastic, hand, aesthetic, and reconstructive surgery.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2026Review
- Antibacterial and therapeutic effects of low energy shock waves on uropathogenic E. coli investigated by in vitro and in vivo cystitis rat model.International urology and nephrology · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntibiotic management of low-virulent implant-associated infections induced by
methodsWe used a total of 120 roughened titanium alloy disks, simulating orthopedic biomaterials, to assess the results of radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy (rESWT) against
resultsPlanktonic bacteria load diminished by 54% compared to untreated control after a 1.8-bar setting with a frequency of 8 Hz and 95 impulses was applied (median absorbance (MA) for intervention vs. control groups was 0.9245 (IQR= 0.888 to 0.104) vs. 0.7705 (IQR = 0.712 to 0.864), respectively,
conclusionA 50% biofilm eradication was documented following application of low-pressure and low-frequency radial shock waves, so rESWT could be investigated as an adjuvant treatment to antibiotics, but it cannot be recommended as a standalone treatment against device-associated infections induced by
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.