ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022
Efficacy of extracorporeal shock waves in the treatment of myofascial pain syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled clinical studies.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Outcomes From Radial Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Combined With Physical Therapy Versus Infrared Therapy Combined With Physical Therapy Among Patients With Myofascial Low Back Pain.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Trial
- Comparison of the efficacy of radial and focused extracorporeal shock-wave therapy (ESWT) in myofascial pain syndrome: a randomized, sham-controlled study.Lasers in medical science · 2025Trial
- Effects of Repeated Injection of 1% Lidocaine vs. Radial Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for Treating Myofascial Trigger Points: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Trial
- Accessory-vagal crosstalk at the jugular foramen: a hypothesis for reflex dry cough during posterior cervical extracorporeal shockwave therapy.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Article
- Clinical efficacy of Linggui Tanxue acupuncture combined with extracorporeal shock wave therapy for piriformis syndrome: a prospective comparative clinical study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- The State of Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy for Myofascial Pain Syndrome-A Scoping Review and a Call for Standardized Protocols.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The Use and Benefits of Focused Shockwaves for the Diagnosis of Myofascial Pain Syndrome by Examining Myofascial Trigger Points in Low Back Pain.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Are Extracorporeal Shock Waves Just a Therapeutic Tool?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Research progress in extracorporeal shock wave therapy for upper limb spasticity after stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is recurrent local myofascial pain with various treatment methods. In recent years, extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has attracted much attention, but its role still lacks systematic review. We included controlled clinical studies for meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the application effect of ESWT. Methods: The English literature from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science to October 2021 was searched by computer. After screening, the quality was evaluated by the PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) scale and analyzed by RevMan 5.4 software. Results: A total of 571 patients were included in 8 studies. The MPS pain sites of 541 patients were in the neck and upper back, and only 30 patients had pain sites in the waist. Meta-analysis showed that the pain level after ESWT was lower than that after other treatment methods [mean difference (MD) =-1.34, 95% confidential interval (CI): -1.87 to -0.81, P<0.00001], the pain threshold after ESWT was higher than that after other treatment methods (MD =0.90, 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.07, P<0.00001), and the neck disability index after ESWT was lower (MD =-1.79, 95% CI: -2.48 to -1.10, P<0.00001). Discussion: ESWT can avoid the adverse effects of invasive procedures on patient tolerance and compliance; compared with trigger point injection (TPI), dry needling, ultrasound-guided pulsed radiofrequency (US), and other methods, ESWT can more effectively relieve pain in patients with MPS.
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.