ArticleBiomedicines2022
A Comparative Feasibility Study for Transcranial Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy.
Article in Biomedicines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extracorporeal shockwave therapy in tissue repair and regeneration.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2026Review
- A new in silico model to precisely design focused ultrasound brain therapies.Medical physics · 2026Article
- A novel application of transcranial pulse stimulation in rehabilitation: pain management in refractory knee osteoarthritis - a case series.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2025Article
- A transducer positioning method for transcranial focused ultrasound treatment of brain tumors.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The potential beneficial regenerative and stimulatory extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) applications to the central nervous system have garnered interest in recent years. Treatment zones for these indications are acoustically shielded by bones, which heavily impact generated sound fields. We present the results of high-resolution tissue-realistic simulations, comparing the viability of different ESWT applicators in their use for transcranial applications. The performances of electrohydraulic, electromagnetic, and piezoelectric transducers for key reflector geometries are compared. Based on density information obtained from CT imaging of the head, we utilized the non-linear wave propagation toolset Matlab k-Wave to obtain spatial therapeutic sound field geometries and waveforms. In order to understand the reliability of results on the appropriate modeling of the skull, three different bone attenuation models were compared. We find that all currently clinically ESWT applicator technologies show significant retention of peak pressures and energies past the bone barrier. Electromagnetic transducers maintain a significantly higher energy flux density compared to other technologies while low focusing strength piezoelectric applicators have the weakest transmissions. Attenuation estimates provide insights into sound field degradation and energy losses, indicating that effective transcranial therapies can readily be attained with current applicators. Furthermore, the presented approach will allow for future targeted in silico development and the design of applicators and therapy plans to ultimately improve therapeutic outcomes.
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.