ArticleTurkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation2025
Radial versus focused extracorporeal shockwave therapy in lateral epicondylitis: Acute effects on pain, muscle strength, upper extremity function, and quality of life.
Article in Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of the efficacy of different types and intensities of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for lateral epicondylitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy of radial and focused shockwave therapy for tendinopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative Effectiveness of Focused Versus Radial Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy and Leukocyte-Poor Versus Leukocyte-Rich Platelet-Rich Plasma for Lateral Epicondylitis: A Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to compare the acute effects of radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy (r-ESWT) and focused extracorporeal shockwave therapy (f-ESWT) on pain, muscle strength, and function in patients with lateral epicondylitis (LE). Patients and methods: Fifty-six patients (31 males, 25 females; mean age: 44.6±8.4 years; range, 19 to 60 years) who were diagnosed with LE participated in the randomized study between August 2023 and October 2023. The patients were stratified by pain level to have four r-ESWT or f-ESWT treatments once a week. Patients were evaluated on the first day of treatment and one week after the last treatment. The outcome measures used were the Visual Analog Scale for pain, isokinetic dynamometer for wrist muscle strength measurement, the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand) score for functional status, and the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) for health-related quality of life. Results: After the treatment, the pain at rest and during activity decreased in both groups (p=0.018, p=0.001, p=0.003, and p<0.001). Nocturnal pain was found to be lower in the f-ESWT group (p=0.028). The isokinetic muscle strength of the wrist extensors was higher in the r-ESWT group compared to the f-ESWT group (p=0.002 and p=0.017). The DASH performance score of the r-ESWT group was higher compared to the f-ESWT group (p=0.009). Both groups showed improvements in SF-36 scores (p<0.05). Conclusion: Both groups showed a decrease in pain levels, but the effects were superior in the f-ESWT group. However, r-ESWT was found to present better results in terms of its effect on isokinetic muscle strength. While f-ESWT may be more effective in reducing pain, r-ESWT may be more effective in increasing muscle strength.
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.