ArticleBioMed research international2021
A Retrospective Study on the Efficacy of Two Different Rehabilitation Interventions on KOA: Shock Wave Therapy vs. Electroacupuncture Therapy.
Article in BioMed research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retracted: A Retrospective Study on the Efficacy of Two Different Rehabilitation Interventions on KOA: Shock Wave Therapy vs. Electroacupuncture Therapy.BioMed research international · 2024Article
- Observation of curative effect on meridian theory-based extracorporeal shock wave therapy for non-specific low back pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Article
- Clinical Observation of Alternative Wave Electroacupuncture Combined with Lee's Naprapathy in Treating Knee Osteoarthritis (Blood Stasis due toEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2024-01-09Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Paper Mill · Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn this paper, we retrospectively reviewed the difference in clinical effectiveness of shock wave therapy and electroacupuncture therapy on knee osteoarthritis.
methodsA total of 128 treatment cases of knee osteoarthritis patients were extracted from the medical record system of Shenzhen Longhua District Central Hospital during the period from January 1, 2018, to January 30, 2020. The cases were divided into three groups for different treatments: shock wave group (
resultsThis study found that the osteoarthritis index scale and NRS scale of the shock wave group and the electroacupuncture group were lower than those before treatment; it had significant difference (
conclusionPhysical and rehabilitation medicine treatment (shock wave therapy) and traditional medical treatment (electroacupuncture) have better clinical effects on knee osteoarthritis, compared with conventional treatment. Shock wave and electric acupuncture have no apparent adverse reaction, suggesting that the treatment is safe and effective.
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.