SynthesisLasers in medical science2025
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy versus laser therapy in treating musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Lasers in medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07660523 (Effectiveness of Second-Generation Focused Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy Combined With Ultrasonographic Assessment in Myofascial Pain Syndrome of the Neck and Shoulder), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 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.
Effectiveness of Second-Generation Focused Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy Combined With Ultrasonographic Assessment in Myofascial Pain Syndrome of the Neck and Shoulder: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy and high-intensity laser therapy in trigger finger: a randomized controlled trial.Rheumatology international · 2026Trial
- Electrotherapy in Pediatric Rehabilitation: A Structured Narrative Review of Clinical Applications, Treatment Parameters, Safety, and Evidence Gaps.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Combined with Subtalar Arthroereisis and Medial Column Stabilisation in the Treatment of PCFD: A Retrospective Study.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Nanotechnology-mediated strategies for skeletal muscle repair and regeneration: targeted intervention, functional remodeling, and translational challenges.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- High-Intensity Laser Therapy Versus Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy for Plantar Fasciitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy modulates hamstring stiffness and flexibility in young males with hamstring tightness: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Current Concepts in Pathogenesis and Conservative Management of Supraspinous Tendinopathies Using Shockwave Therapy-A Narrative Review of the Literature.Biomedicines · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to compare the effectiveness of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy (ESWT) versus Laser therapy (Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) and High-Intensity Laser Therapy (HILT) in treating musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs). Systematic searches of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were performed in six databases from inception till February 2025. Two researchers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. Eligible studies had to report at least one of the following outcomes: pain, functionality, strength, range of motion (ROM), and quality of life (Qol). Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane Collaboration tool (RoB 2.0). Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager software version 5.4.1, and quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Twenty-eight RCTs involving 1,460 patients were included. The findings indicated that neither LLLT nor HILT showed a significant difference from ESWT in pain, strength, ROM, or quality of life. However, ESWT demonstrated a marginal statistically significant functional advantage over LLLT, but not over HILT. The GRADE certainty rating was rated as very low to moderate. According to GRDAE certainty rating, ESWT and laser therapies (LLLT and/or HILT) had equivalent effect in improving pain, strength, ROM, and Qol in patients with MSKDs, while ESWT had some short-term effects in improving functions more than LLLT but not than HILT. Large RCTs with higher methodological quality are needed to draw more incisive conclusions.
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.