ArticleHealth science reports2025
Extracorporeal Shock Waves Therapy for the Treatment of Acute and Chronic Wounds-A Prospective, Monocentric Clinical Trial to Examine the Effect of Shock Waves on Wound Healing.
Article in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Regulatory Effects and Mechanisms of Electromagnetic Low-Energy Shock Wave Therapy on Blood Glucose in Type 2 Diabetic Rats.Biology · 2026Article
- Stromal-Derived Factor-1 (SDF-1/CXCL12) and Skin Wound Healing Research at the Intersection Between Regenerative Biology and Medicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of our prospective blinded clinical study was to examine a possible improvement and acceleration of epithelialization by treatment with low-energy extracorporeal shock waves on skin graft donor and recipient sites in patients with chronic wounds. In addition, several secondary parameters were investigated to evaluate the compatibility of the therapeutic method, its influence on infection occurrence and bacterial colonization. Materials and Methods: A total of 35 patients were included in the study. Of these, 25 participants were assigned to the verum-placebo group and 10 to the sham treatment group. The study of the sham control group was done to exclude a possible "remote effect" of the placebo area. Depending on the group, the wound areas were treated with low-frequency shock waves, placebo, or sham. The examinations were performed immediately on Day 0 after surgical treatment and on Days 5, 7, 9, and 12 after surgery. To record long-term results, an additional evaluation of the wound situation was performed on Day 90. Results: Epithelialization was statistically significantly accelerated by shock wave application at both skin graft recipient sites and donor sites (0.86 vs. 0.92, Conclusion: A repeated application of ESWT followed by standardized wound care was shown to significantly accelerate the time to re-epithelialization at the skin graft donor and recipient site compared with re-epithelialization time in patients of the sham/placebo group.
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.