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

Network meta-analysis of six non-operative modalities for management of shoulder calcific tendinitis

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
November 2017

Network meta-analysis of six non-operative modalities for management of shoulder calcific tendinitis

Vol: 6| Issue: 11| Number:16| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Meta-analysis/Systematic Review
OE Level Evidence:1
Journal Level of Evidence:N/A

Comparative Effectiveness of Nonoperative Treatments for Chronic Calcific Tendinitis of the Shoulder: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017 Aug;98(8):1678-1692

Contributing Authors:
Y Wu YK Tu WC Tsai TY Yu

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

Synopsis

Fourteen randomized controlled trials were included in this network meta-analysis on the use of six different non-operative modalities - high-energy focused extracorporeal shockwave therapy, low-energy focused extracorporeal shockwave therapy, radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, therapeutic ultrasound, and ultrasound-guided needling - compared to c...

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