Trial reportArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
Chronic plantar fasciitis: which is more effective? Prolotherapy/extracorporeal shock wave therapy? A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 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.
- Recent Advances in Ultrasound-Guided Hydrodissection and Dextrose Prolotherapy for Musculoskeletal Pain: A Target-Based State-of-the-Art Narrative Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comment to the article: Where and how should prolotherapy and steroid injections be administered for optimal outcomes in plantar fasciitis?Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION /
aimChronic plantar fasciitis is a prevalent musculoskeletal disorder. The objective of this study was to compare the effects of ESWT and prolotherapy on pain, foot function, plantar fascia thickness and plantar pressure distribution in patients with chronic plantar fasciitis. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 70 patients were included in this prospective, randomised controlled study. The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The study population was divided into two groups: the ESWT group (n = 36) and the prolotherapy group (n = 34). In the ESWT group, a total of 1800 to 2000 focused shock waves (0.15-0.25 mJ/mm² sessions with a frequency of 3-4 Hz) were applied. The prolotherapy group was administered a 3-ml injection of a 15% dextrose solution. The ESWT and prolotherapy treatments were administered in a total of three sessions, with two-week intervals between each session. The efficacy of the treatment was evaluated using a number of different measures, including the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Foot and Ankle Ability Measurement (FAAM), the thickness of the plantar fascia and the distribution of plantar pressure. The evaluations were conducted at the outset of the study, at the six-week mark, and at the 12-week mark following the final intervention.
resultsIn both groups, there was a statistically significant reduction in morning VAS value and plantar fascia thickness at week 12 compared to baseline (p < 0.001). The difference between the groups was only in plantar fascia thickness at week 6 and overall VAS value at week 12.
conclusionProlotherapy was found relatively more effective than ESWT in reducing VAS value in the medium term (3 months), although there is no difference in functional parameters. The results demonstrated that both prolotherapy and ESWT exhibited comparable outcomes during the follow-up period.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40220030What 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.