ReviewShoulder & elbow2026
Prognostic factors for outcomes following needling and shockwave therapy in rotator cuff calcific tendinitis: A systematic review.
Review in Shoulder & elbow, 2026. 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.
- Calcific Tendinitis: A Pain-Oriented and Site-Specific Narrative Review.Pain research & management · 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
Background: This systematic review aimed to evaluate prognostic factors associated with outcomes following needling and shockwave therapy (SWT) for RCCT rotator cuff calcific tendinitis (RCCT). Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched for studies on prognostic factors in RCCT treated with needling or SWT that included multivariable analyses. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool, and the quality of each prognostic factor was evaluated using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Results: 13 studies involving 1693 shoulder patients were included, of which 11 evaluated needling and two evaluated SWT, all showing moderate-to-high risk of bias. Across needling studies, 32 variables were evaluated in multivariable models, with five showing potential predictive value for treatment success based on GRADE quality: larger calcification size, Type III Gartner-Heyer (fluid-like) classification, shorter distance between the subacromial bursa and deposit, normal bursal appearance, and fewer needling sessions. In SWT studies, four variables were analysed, with Type III calcifications and shorter symptom duration associated with better outcomes. Discussion: Certain disease- and procedural-related factors may predict better outcomes with needling or SWT for RCCT, though the evidence is limited and requires prospective validation to refine patient selection. Level of Evidence: III.
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.