Fabrizio Brindisino, Sharon Marruganti, Domenico Lorusso, Claudia Cavaggion, Diego Ristori
{"title":"体外冲击波疗法对肩袖钙化性肌腱病的疗效。系统回顾与荟萃分析。","authors":"Fabrizio Brindisino, Sharon Marruganti, Domenico Lorusso, Claudia Cavaggion, Diego Ristori","doi":"10.1002/pri.2106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate if Extracorporeal Shock Wave therapy (ESWT) is effective in reducing pain and disability, in improving function, quality of life and complete resorption rate of calcification in patients with Rotator Cuff Calcific Tendinopathy. To investigate which modality of ESWT brings the greatest clinical improvements between High (HE)-SWT and Low Energy (LE)-SWT and between Focal (F)-SWT and Radial (R)-SWT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL Database, and PEDro databases until February 2024 were searched. Study registers were further investigated. The Risk of Bias (RoB) was assessed with the Revised Cochrane RoB Tool (RoB 2). The certainty of evidence was rated with GRADE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-one randomized controlled trials were included. None was judged as overall low RoB. Comparing ESWT and Ultrasound Guided Needling Procedures (USGNP), the pooled results reported a significant difference favoring USGNP in pain at <24 and <48 weeks (MD = 1.17, p = 0.004, I<sup>2</sup> = 59%; MD = 1.31, p = 0.004, I<sup>2</sup> = 42%, respectively). Comparing ESWT and sham-ESWT, the pooled results reported a clinically significant difference favoring ESWT in pain and function at 24 weeks (MD = -5.72, p < 0.00001, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; Standardized Mean Difference = 2.94, p = 0.02 I<sup>2</sup> = 98%, respectively). Comparing HE-SWT and LE-SWT, HE-SWT was statistically and clinically superior in pain and function at <24 weeks (MD = -1.83, p = 0.03, I<sup>2</sup> = 87%; MD = 14.60, p = 0.002, I<sup>2</sup> = 77%, respectively) and showed a significantly higher complete resorption rate of calcification at 12 weeks (Risk Ratio = 2.53, p = 0.001, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). F-SWT and R-SWT appear equally effective in reducing pain, improving disability and resorption rate. The certainty of evidence was rated as very low through GRADE approach.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>USGNP was statistically superior to ESWT in pain reduction at <24 and <48 weeks. ESWT was clinically better to sham-ESWT in pain reduction and function improvement at 24 weeks. HE-SWT was clinically more effective than LE-SWT in reducing pain, improving function at <24 weeks, and resolving calcific deposits at 12 weeks, while no differences between F-SWT and R-SWT were reported.</p>","PeriodicalId":47243,"journal":{"name":"Physiotherapy Research International","volume":"29 3","pages":"e2106"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy. A systematic review with meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Fabrizio Brindisino, Sharon Marruganti, Domenico Lorusso, Claudia Cavaggion, Diego Ristori\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pri.2106\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate if Extracorporeal Shock Wave therapy (ESWT) is effective in reducing pain and disability, in improving function, quality of life and complete resorption rate of calcification in patients with Rotator Cuff Calcific Tendinopathy. To investigate which modality of ESWT brings the greatest clinical improvements between High (HE)-SWT and Low Energy (LE)-SWT and between Focal (F)-SWT and Radial (R)-SWT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL Database, and PEDro databases until February 2024 were searched. Study registers were further investigated. The Risk of Bias (RoB) was assessed with the Revised Cochrane RoB Tool (RoB 2). The certainty of evidence was rated with GRADE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-one randomized controlled trials were included. None was judged as overall low RoB. Comparing ESWT and Ultrasound Guided Needling Procedures (USGNP), the pooled results reported a significant difference favoring USGNP in pain at <24 and <48 weeks (MD = 1.17, p = 0.004, I<sup>2</sup> = 59%; MD = 1.31, p = 0.004, I<sup>2</sup> = 42%, respectively). Comparing ESWT and sham-ESWT, the pooled results reported a clinically significant difference favoring ESWT in pain and function at 24 weeks (MD = -5.72, p < 0.00001, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; Standardized Mean Difference = 2.94, p = 0.02 I<sup>2</sup> = 98%, respectively). Comparing HE-SWT and LE-SWT, HE-SWT was statistically and clinically superior in pain and function at <24 weeks (MD = -1.83, p = 0.03, I<sup>2</sup> = 87%; MD = 14.60, p = 0.002, I<sup>2</sup> = 77%, respectively) and showed a significantly higher complete resorption rate of calcification at 12 weeks (Risk Ratio = 2.53, p = 0.001, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). F-SWT and R-SWT appear equally effective in reducing pain, improving disability and resorption rate. The certainty of evidence was rated as very low through GRADE approach.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>USGNP was statistically superior to ESWT in pain reduction at <24 and <48 weeks. ESWT was clinically better to sham-ESWT in pain reduction and function improvement at 24 weeks. HE-SWT was clinically more effective than LE-SWT in reducing pain, improving function at <24 weeks, and resolving calcific deposits at 12 weeks, while no differences between F-SWT and R-SWT were reported.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47243,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physiotherapy Research International\",\"volume\":\"29 3\",\"pages\":\"e2106\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physiotherapy Research International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pri.2106\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiotherapy Research International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pri.2106","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
The effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy. A systematic review with meta-analysis.
Purpose: To investigate if Extracorporeal Shock Wave therapy (ESWT) is effective in reducing pain and disability, in improving function, quality of life and complete resorption rate of calcification in patients with Rotator Cuff Calcific Tendinopathy. To investigate which modality of ESWT brings the greatest clinical improvements between High (HE)-SWT and Low Energy (LE)-SWT and between Focal (F)-SWT and Radial (R)-SWT.
Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL Database, and PEDro databases until February 2024 were searched. Study registers were further investigated. The Risk of Bias (RoB) was assessed with the Revised Cochrane RoB Tool (RoB 2). The certainty of evidence was rated with GRADE.
Results: Twenty-one randomized controlled trials were included. None was judged as overall low RoB. Comparing ESWT and Ultrasound Guided Needling Procedures (USGNP), the pooled results reported a significant difference favoring USGNP in pain at <24 and <48 weeks (MD = 1.17, p = 0.004, I2 = 59%; MD = 1.31, p = 0.004, I2 = 42%, respectively). Comparing ESWT and sham-ESWT, the pooled results reported a clinically significant difference favoring ESWT in pain and function at 24 weeks (MD = -5.72, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%; Standardized Mean Difference = 2.94, p = 0.02 I2 = 98%, respectively). Comparing HE-SWT and LE-SWT, HE-SWT was statistically and clinically superior in pain and function at <24 weeks (MD = -1.83, p = 0.03, I2 = 87%; MD = 14.60, p = 0.002, I2 = 77%, respectively) and showed a significantly higher complete resorption rate of calcification at 12 weeks (Risk Ratio = 2.53, p = 0.001, I2 = 0%). F-SWT and R-SWT appear equally effective in reducing pain, improving disability and resorption rate. The certainty of evidence was rated as very low through GRADE approach.
Conclusion: USGNP was statistically superior to ESWT in pain reduction at <24 and <48 weeks. ESWT was clinically better to sham-ESWT in pain reduction and function improvement at 24 weeks. HE-SWT was clinically more effective than LE-SWT in reducing pain, improving function at <24 weeks, and resolving calcific deposits at 12 weeks, while no differences between F-SWT and R-SWT were reported.
期刊介绍：
Physiotherapy Research International is an international peer reviewed journal dedicated to the exchange of knowledge that is directly relevant to specialist areas of physiotherapy theory, practice, and research. Our aim is to promote a high level of scholarship and build on the current evidence base to inform the advancement of the physiotherapy profession. We publish original research on a wide range of topics e.g. Primary research testing new physiotherapy treatments; methodological research; measurement and outcome research and qualitative research of interest to researchers, clinicians and educators. Further, we aim to publish high quality papers that represent the range of cultures and settings where physiotherapy services are delivered. We attract a wide readership from physiotherapists and others working in diverse clinical and academic settings. We aim to promote an international debate amongst the profession about current best evidence based practice. Papers are directed primarily towards the physiotherapy profession, but can be relevant to a wide range of professional groups. The growth of interdisciplinary research is also key to our aims and scope, and we encourage relevant submissions from other professional groups. The journal actively encourages submissions which utilise a breadth of different methodologies and research designs to facilitate addressing key questions related to the physiotherapy practice. PRI seeks to encourage good quality topical debates on a range of relevant issues and promote critical reflection on decision making and implementation of physiotherapy interventions.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
