ReviewJPRAS open2026
Systematic mapping review of applications of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) in hand surgery.
Review in JPRAS open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Aim: This systematic mapping review aims to consolidate and categorize existing evidence regarding the utilization of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) in hand surgery. Methods: Following the Results: Thirty studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 10 case series, and two cohort studies. Evidence was predominantly centered on carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), with additional studies addressing trigger finger, Dupuytren's disease, post-carpal tunnel release (post-CTRS) pillar pain and scaphoid wrist nonunions. Most reports demonstrated short-term improvements in clinical and PROM outcomes, with complications infrequent and generally mild. However, treatment protocols varied widely in terms of shockwave type, intensity, and frequency. Observations on dose dependency were inconsistent, and most RCTs carried a moderate to high risk of bias, with all reporting a Fragility Index (FI) of zero. Conclusion: This review highlights ESWT as a promising adjunct with short-term benefits across select soft tissue conditions of the hand. Nevertheless, its role in long-term management remains uncertain. Standardization of treatment parameters and rigorously designed multicenter RCTs with extended follow-up and functional outcomes are required to establish the durability, safety, and clinical utility of ESWT in hand surgery.
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.