ArticleActa orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica2020
Comparison of low level laser therapy and extracorporeal shock wave in treatment of chronic lateral epicondylitis.
Article in Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laser therapy versus extracorporeal shock wave therapy for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Lasers in medical science · 2025Pooled it
- Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy versus laser therapy in treating musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Lasers in medical science · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- Review
- Analgesic and Functional Efficiency of High-Voltage Electrical Stimulation in Patients with Lateral Epicondylitis-A Report with a 180-Day Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) ver-sus low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in treating chronic lateral epicondylitis (CLE).
methodsIn this prospective study, 52 patients (24 males, 28 females; mean age=48 years; age range=30-70 years) with a diagnosis of CLE were included and randomized into two groups (26 in each group): ESWT group (14 males, 12 females; mean age=48±10 years) or LLLT group (10 males, 16 females; mean age=48±11 years). ESWT was applied for 5 weeks with one session per week, while LLLT was applied with 15 sessions on consecutive days. All patients were evaluated using Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (DASH), Patient-Related Lateral Epicondy-litis Evaluation (PRTEE), and the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) before and after the treatments.
resultsIn the comparison of baseline data between treatment groups, significant differences were observed only in SF-Physical functioning and SF-Energy/fatigue scores (p=0.035 and p=0.038, re-spectively), which were 77.1±17.2 and 56.3±17.2 in ESWT group and 66.5±18.0 and 44.8±21.5 in LLLT group, respectively. In the comparison of post-treatment data between groups, there were sig-nificant differences in all scores (p<0.05) except two subscales of SF-36, which were SF-role limita-tions due to emotional problems (p=0.092) and physical health (p=0.147), respectively. The other subscales of SF-36, PRTEE and DASH scores obtained after the treatments were better in ESWT group than in LLLT group. The comparison of pre-and post-treatment scores in each group revealed significant improvements in all scores (p<0.05), except SF-36 subscales, including energy/fatigue, emotional well-being, social functioning, and general health scores (p>0.05).
conclusionEvidence from this study revealed that although both treatment modalities were effective in the treatment of CLE, ESWT seemed to more effective in pain relief and functional recovery than LLLT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, Therapeutic study.
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.