SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2026
Extracorporeal shockwaves therapy for finger stenosing tenosynovitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Stenosing tenosynovitis is a common chronic tendon disease that seriously affects daily life and working ability. However, its treatment is very challenging and requires more effective treatment methods. A large number of clinical studies have shown that extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) may relieve the symptoms of stenosing tenosynovitis, but there are no published reviews or meta-analyses specifically and comprehensively evaluating its efficacy for this disease. Therefore, through conducting a meta-analysis, this study systematically evaluated the therapeutic effect of ESWT on stenosing tenosynovitis, aiming to provide evidence-based medical evidence for clinical decision-making. Methods: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, CNKI, and VIP databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTS) on shock wave therapy for stenosing tenosynovitis from database establishment to June 2025. The limited languages are Chinese and English. The search terms include: "Extracorporeal shockwave therapy," shock wave therapy, "HIFU therapy, "De quervain stenosing tenosynovitis," Trigger Digits, "finger Snapping". The extracted inclusion indicators included the pain score VAS or NRS, the QDASH Disability questionnaire (Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire), and the cooney wrist joint function score. After extracting the data, meta-analysis was conducted through Review Manager5.3 software and Stata17.0 software. Results: Twelve studies were included, all of which were randomized controlled studies. The results showed that the experimental group was significantly superior to the control group in terms of pain relief, with a total effect size of -1.32 (95% CI: -1.85, -0.79), which was highly statistically significant (Z = 4.89, P < 0.00001). The QDASH score of the shock wave group was superior to that of the control group, and there was no statistically significant difference (MD = -6.14, 95% CI [-14.00, 1.72], P = 0.13, I Conclusion: The results of this meta-analysis show that ESWT has a positive effect on symptom improvement in patients with stenosing tenosynovitis, but there is currently a lack of sufficient and high-quality systematic data to support it. In the future, more rigorous and well-designed clinical studies with adequate sample sizes are needed to comprehensively verify the safety and efficacy of ESWT in treating stenotic tenosynovitis.
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.