Trial reportThe American journal of sports medicine2025
Physiotherapy Compared With Shockwave Therapy for the Treatment of Proximal Hamstring Tendinopathy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in The American journal of sports medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Radial Pressure Wave and Focused Shockwave Therapy for Proximal Hamstring Tendinopathy: The Role of Patient Positioning, a Narrative Review and Clinical Commentary.International journal of sports physical therapy · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProximal hamstring tendinopathy (PHT) presents as localized lower buttock pain with tasks such as running and sitting. PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of individualized physiotherapy compared with shockwave therapy on pain and function in PHT.
methodsThis prospective parallel-group, assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT) was set in 10 primary care physiotherapy practices in Victoria, Australia. A total of 100 participants with PHT were randomly assigned to receive 6 sessions of either individualized physiotherapy or shockwave therapy, with both groups receiving standardized advice and education. Primary outcomes were global rating of change on a 7-point Likert scale and the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment Scale for Proximal Hamstring Tendinopathy at 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks postrandomization. Analyses were by intention-to-treat using linear mixed models.
resultsAll except 1 patient received the allocated intervention, and the participant follow-up rate was 88% at 12 months. There were no significant differences between groups in primary outcomes at any time point. For secondary outcome measures, participants in the shockwave group had statistically significantly greater satisfaction with treatment at 26 weeks, satisfaction with results of treatment at 4 and 26 weeks, and general health at 52 weeks. Responder analyses of participants achieving clinically significant improvements showed no significant differences between groups at any time point.
conclusionThis RCT found no difference in effectiveness of individualized physiotherapy compared with shockwave therapy on global effect or function in PHT. Future trials on PHT appear feasible but could explore a different sample population or other intervention and/or comparison groups. REGISTRATION: ACTRN12621000846820 (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry).
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.