Dataset Information

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background:Osteoarthritis is the most common musculoskeletal disease. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy had shown an effect on osteoarthritis in both some animal experiments and clinical studies, but there was no systematic review to confirm the value of shockwave therapy in the treatment of all types of osteoarthritis and compare it with other traditional therapies (especially traditional Chinese medicine). Method:PubMed, Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, WANFANG database, and VIP database were searched up to December 10, 2019, to identify randomized controlled trials comparing shockwave therapy and other treatments for osteoarthritis. Visual analogue scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index were extracted and analyzed by RevMan and STATA software as outcomes of pain reduction and functional improvement. Adverse reactions were recorded to evaluate the safety of shockwave therapy. Results:Shockwave therapy had significant improvement in both pain reduction and functional improvement compared with placebo, corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid, medication, and ultrasound (P < 0.05). In functional improvement, shockwave therapy showed statistical improvement compared with kinesiotherapy and moxibustion (P < 0.05) but not with acupotomy surgery (P = 0.24). A significant difference between shockwave therapy and platelet-rich plasma was observed in pain reduction (P < 0.05) but not in functional improvement (P = 0.89). Meanwhile, a statistical difference was found between shockwave therapy and fumigation in functional improvement (P < 0.05) but not in pain reduction (P = 0.26). Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference between shockwave therapy and manipulation in both pain reduction (P = 0.21) and functional improvement (P = 0.45). No serious adverse reaction occurred in all of studies. Conclusions:Extracorporeal shockwave therapy could be recommended in the treatment of osteoarthritis as a noninvasive therapy with safety and effectiveness, but the grade of recommendations needs to be discussed in a further study.

SUBMITTER: Chen L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7104126 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Chen Lu L Ye Ling L Liu Hui H Yang Pingliang P Yang Bangxiang B

BioMed research international 20200318

<h4>Background</h4>Osteoarthritis is the most common musculoskeletal disease. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy had shown an effect on osteoarthritis in both some animal experiments and clinical studies, but there was no systematic review to confirm the value of shockwave therapy in the treatment of all types of osteoarthritis and compare it with other traditional therapies (especially traditional Chinese medicine).<h4>Method</h4>PubMed, Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ...[more]

PMID: 32309424

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on spasticity after upper motor neuron injury.DesignEight electronic databases were searched systematically from their inception to August 3, 2021, to provide robust evidence for the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for spasticity and range of motion after upper motor neuron injury. Study screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and evaluation of the certainty of evidence were performed independently by two independent reviewers. Data analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3.5 and R 3.6.1 software.ResultsForty-two studies with 1973 patients who met the eligibility criteria were selected from articles published from 2010 to 2021, of which 34 were included in the meta-analysis. A comparison intervention revealed that extracorporeal shock wave therapy significantly decreased the Modified Ashworth Scale score and increased the passive range of motion of a joint. Regarding the safety of extracorporeal shock wave therapy, slightly adverse effects, such as skin injury, bone distortion, muscle numbness, pain, petechiae, and weakness, were reported in five studies.ConclusionsExtracorporeal shock wave therapy may be an effective and safe treatment for spasticity after upper motor neuron injury. However, because of poor methodological qualities of the included studies and high heterogeneity, this conclusion warrants further investigation.To claim cme creditsComplete the self-assessment activity and evaluation online at http://www.physiatry.org/JournalCME.Cme objectivesUpon completion of this article, the reader should be able to: (1) Determine the impact of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on spasticity after upper motor neuron injury; (2) Describe the factors that affect the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on spasticity; and (3) Discuss the mechanism of action of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on spasticity.LevelAdvanced.AccreditationThe Association of Academic Physiatrists is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.The Association of Academic Physiatrists designates this Journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Project description:BackgroundExtracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has been used in various musculoskeletal disorders, including lateral epicondylitis. However, in 2005, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials showed that ESWT provides minimal or no benefit in terms of pain and function in patients with lateral epicondylitis. Since the review, several randomized controlled trials including different types of ESWT such as radial type for lateral epicondylitis have been published. Investigations of the effect modifiers such as symptom and follow-up duration on the effects of ESWT on lateral epicondylitis have not been performed.Questions/purposes(1) Does ESWT reduce pain and improve grip strength in patients with lateral epicondylitis? (2) Which type of ESWT, radial or focused, is more effective? (3) Is the duration of symptoms associated with the efficacy of ESWT for lateral epicondylitis? (4) Do improvements in pain scores remain in patients with longer follow-up?MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched up to July 2019 for articles published in English or Korean. Studies were included if patient allocation was randomized, the sample was composed of patients with lateral epicondylitis, interventions were ESWT (focused or radial), comparison group only received sham stimulation or no additional treatment, and the study outcome was pain intensity or grip strength. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Twelve studies including 1104 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The mean difference for pain reduction and improvement in grip strength was calculated.ResultsThe meta-analysis showed no clinically important difference in the VAS score (2.48 ± 7.55 versus 3.17 ± 9.78, mean difference -0.68 [95% confidence interval -1.17 to -0.19]; p = 0.006) and grip strength (38.02 ± 70.56 versus 34.85 ± 108.26, mean difference 3.33 [95% CI 0.93 to 5.73]; p = 0.007) after ESWT relative to the comparison group's score. Even though radial ESWT showed more improvement than focused, the mean difference for VAS did not exceed the minimal clinically important differences threshold. There were no clinically important effects on the VAS scores of patients with lateral epicondylitis (2.78 ± 5.57 versus 3.92 ± 6.29, mean difference -1.13 [95% CI -1.84 to -0.42]; p = 0.002) and focused ESWT did not improve pain in patients with lateral epicondylitis. In the subgroup analysis, ESWT was effective in patients with a symptom duration of more than 6 months (2.28 ± 8.48 versus 3.31 ± 11.81, mean difference -0.95 [95% CI -1.75 to -0.15]; p = 0.02) but not for those with shorter symptom duration. The effects did not last beyond 24 weeks (2.52 ± 9.19 versus 3.34 ± 5.93, mean difference -0.82 [95% CI -2.57 to 0.93]; p = 0.36).ConclusionsESWT did not show clinically important improvement in pain reduction and grip strength. Radial ESWT, symptom duration of longer than 6 months, and short follow-up duration (less than 24 weeks) were related to better effects. Further studies are needed to determine the appropriate protocol and elucidate the effects according to the intervention type and specific disease condition.Level of evidenceLevel I, therapeutic study.

Project description:BackgroundMany studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and local corticosteroid injection (LCI) for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), and some studies showed that the effect of ESWT was superior to LCI. We performed this meta-analysis to compare the clinical effects across the two therapies.MethodsRelevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ESWT and LCI for the treatment of CTS were searched in electronic database. The Cochrane risk bias tool was used for quality assessment. After data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies, a meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Mean differences (MDs), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were analyzed. The protocol for this systematic review was registered on INPLASY (202080025) and is available in full on the inplasy.com ( https://doi.org/10.37766/inplasy2020.8.0025 ) RESULTS: A total of 5 RCT studies with 204 patients were included from the electronic database. The meta-analysis results showed that two therapies were not significantly different in terms of visual analog scale (VAS) score (P = 0.65), Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BQ) score (P = 0.14), sensory distal latency (P = 0.66), and nerve conduction velocity (NCV) of the sensory nerve (P = 0.06). There were significant differences between the results of motor distal latency (P < 0.0001), compound muscle action potential (CMAP) amplitude (P < 0.00001), and sensory nerve action potential (SNAP) amplitude (P = 0.004).ConclusionsIn terms of pain relief and function improvement, the effects of ESWT and LCI are not significantly different. In terms of electrophysiological parameters, LCI has a stronger effect on shortening motor distal latency; ESWT is superior to LCI in improving action potential amplitude. ESWT is a noninvasive treatment with fewer complications and greater patient safety. In light of the heterogeneity and limitations, these conclusions require further research for definitive conclusions to be drawn.

Dataset Information

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets