Effectiveness of Radial Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy Versus Other Electrophysical Modalities on Pain and Functionality in Patients With Plantar Fasciitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.1
Francisco Guede-Rojas, Leonardo Rodriguez-Lagos, Claudio Carvajal-Parodi
{"title":"Effectiveness of Radial Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy Versus Other Electrophysical Modalities on Pain and Functionality in Patients With Plantar Fasciitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Francisco Guede-Rojas, Leonardo Rodriguez-Lagos, Claudio Carvajal-Parodi","doi":"10.1177/19386400261449323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundPlantar fasciitis (PF) is the leading cause of chronic heel pain in adults, impairing mobility and quality of life. Radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy (rESWT) is widely used in physiotherapy for its practicality and cost-effectiveness. However, heterogeneity in study designs and protocols limits conclusions regarding its efficacy compared with other electrophysical modalities (EPMs). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesize the immediate effects of rESWT, alone or combined with conventional physiotherapy, versus other EPMs, focusing on pain and functional outcomes.MethodsA systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and PEDro was conducted up to April 2025 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rESWT, alone or combined with non-electrophysical interventions, versus other EPMs in adults with PF. Pain intensity and functional disability were the primary outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models, with sensitivity analyses conducted according to outcome type and comparator. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.ResultsFourteen RCTs (n = 797) were included, of which 12 contributed to the meta-analysis. Radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy did not demonstrate superiority over other EPMs for pain reduction (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.39 to 0.33) or functional improvement (SMD = -0.11; 95% CI: -0.47 to 0.25). Low-level laser therapy showed small but statistically significant advantages over rESWT for functional outcomes. Overall risk of bias (RoB) was high across most studies.ConclusionsRadial extracorporeal shockwave therapy, alone or combined with physical therapy, does not appear superior to other EPMs for PF. The high heterogeneity and overall elevated RoB limit the certainty of these findings, highlighting the need for high-quality trials to guide clinical recommendations.Level of Evidence:Level I: Systematic Review.</p>","PeriodicalId":73046,"journal":{"name":"Foot & ankle specialist","volume":" ","pages":"19386400261449323"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foot & ankle specialist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19386400261449323","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundPlantar fasciitis (PF) is the leading cause of chronic heel pain in adults, impairing mobility and quality of life. Radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy (rESWT) is widely used in physiotherapy for its practicality and cost-effectiveness. However, heterogeneity in study designs and protocols limits conclusions regarding its efficacy compared with other electrophysical modalities (EPMs). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesize the immediate effects of rESWT, alone or combined with conventional physiotherapy, versus other EPMs, focusing on pain and functional outcomes.MethodsA systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and PEDro was conducted up to April 2025 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rESWT, alone or combined with non-electrophysical interventions, versus other EPMs in adults with PF. Pain intensity and functional disability were the primary outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models, with sensitivity analyses conducted according to outcome type and comparator. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.ResultsFourteen RCTs (n = 797) were included, of which 12 contributed to the meta-analysis. Radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy did not demonstrate superiority over other EPMs for pain reduction (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.39 to 0.33) or functional improvement (SMD = -0.11; 95% CI: -0.47 to 0.25). Low-level laser therapy showed small but statistically significant advantages over rESWT for functional outcomes. Overall risk of bias (RoB) was high across most studies.ConclusionsRadial extracorporeal shockwave therapy, alone or combined with physical therapy, does not appear superior to other EPMs for PF. The high heterogeneity and overall elevated RoB limit the certainty of these findings, highlighting the need for high-quality trials to guide clinical recommendations.Level of Evidence:Level I: Systematic Review.

桡骨体外冲击波治疗与其他电物理治疗相比对足底筋膜炎患者疼痛和功能的有效性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:足底筋膜炎(PF)是成人慢性足跟疼痛的主要原因,影响活动能力和生活质量。放射状体外冲击波治疗(rESWT)因其实用性和成本效益在物理治疗中得到广泛应用。然而,研究设计和方案的异质性限制了关于其与其他电物理模式(epm)的疗效的结论。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在综合rESWT单独或联合常规物理治疗与其他epm的即时效果,重点关注疼痛和功能结局。方法系统检索PubMed、CINAHL、Scopus、Web of Science和PEDro,检索截止到2025年4月的随机对照试验(rct),比较rESWT单独或联合非电物理干预与其他EPMs治疗成人PF的效果,疼痛强度和功能障碍是主要结局。采用随机效应模型进行meta分析,并根据结果类型和比较物进行敏感性分析。采用建议分级评估、发展和评价方法评估证据的确定性。结果共纳入14项rct (n = 797),其中12项纳入meta分析。桡骨体外冲击波治疗在减轻疼痛(标准化平均差[SMD] = -0.03; 95%可信区间[CI]: -0.39至0.33)或功能改善(SMD = -0.11; 95% CI: -0.47至0.25)方面没有表现出优于其他EPMs的优势。与rESWT相比,低水平激光治疗在功能预后方面显示出较小但有统计学意义的优势。大多数研究的总体偏倚风险(RoB)都很高。结论:桡骨体外冲击波治疗,单独或联合物理治疗,并不比其他EPMs治疗PF更优越。高异质性和总体升高的RoB限制了这些发现的确定性,强调需要高质量的试验来指导临床建议。证据等级:一级:系统评价。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书