SynthesisLasers in medical science2026
Comparison of laser therapy and extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the treatment of patients with plantar fasciitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.
Synthesis in Lasers in medical science, 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.
- Comparative effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy and high-intensity laser therapy in trigger finger: a randomized controlled trial.Rheumatology international · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of LILT, HILT and ESWT for chronic PF. A thorough literature search across several databases yielded 108 studies. After screening for relevance, 10 prospective studies involving 803 patients were included in the analysis. Data was pooled using a random-effects model, with the mean difference (MD) and 95%CI as the main statistical measures. Our meta-analysis found no significant difference between ESWT and HILT in the change of VAS score and FFI score from pretreatment to post-treatment scores (MD: -0.50, 95% CI: -1.42 to 0.42, P = 0.28), and (MD: -8.08, 95% CI: -22.09 to 5.94, P = 0.26), respectively. Also, no difference between HILT and LILT in the change of VAS score from pretreatment to post-treatment scores (MD: 1.95, 95% CI: -0.84 to 4.74, P = 0.17). Additionally, our analysis revealed no significant difference between ESWT and LILT in the change of AFOS score from pretreatment to post-treatment scores (MD: -1.64, 95% CI: -10.51 to 7.23, P = 0.72). The analysis concluded that ESWT, LILT, and HILT all demonstrate similar efficacy in treating chronic plantar fasciitis, with no significant advantages observed for any specific therapy.
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.