To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Low and high intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy for chronic plantar fasciitis

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
October 2014

Low and high intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy for chronic plantar fasciitis

Vol: 3| Issue: 10| Number:24| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Meta-analysis/Systematic Review
OE Level Evidence:2
Journal Level of Evidence:N/A

Is Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Clinical Efficacy for Relief of Chronic, Recalcitrant Plantar Fasciitis? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Placebo or Active-Treatment Controlled Trials

Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 Aug;95(8):1585-1593

Contributing Authors:
MC Yin J Ye M Yao XJ Cui Y Xia QX Shen ZY Tong XQ Wu JM Ma W Mo

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

Data from 7 studies (RCTs and Quasi-RCTs), examining 550 patients with chronic recalcitrant plantar fasciitis, was pooled to investigate the safety and efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT). The evidence presented in this meta-analysis and systematic review indicated that low intensity ESWT delivered higher success rates than control treatments. Pain relief was better in both low and...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue