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

Calcifying tendinitis of shoulder: high- vs low-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Author Verified
Ace Report Cover
November 2014

Calcifying tendinitis of shoulder: high- vs low-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy

Vol: 3| Issue: 11| Number:48| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Meta-analysis/Systematic Review
OE Level Evidence:1
Journal Level of Evidence:1

High-energy Versus Low-energy Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for Calcifying Tendinitis of the Shoulder: Which is Superior? A Meta-analysis

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Sep;472(9):2816-25. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3680-0. Epub 2014 May 29.

Contributing Authors:
FU Verstraelen NJ In den Kleef L Janssen JW Morrenhof

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

Synopsis

This meta-analysis/systematic review identified 5 randomized controlled trials (359 patients) that compared high- to low-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) for calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder. The aim of this analysis was to investigate functional outcome using Constant-Murley scores and radiologic resorption of calcium deposits between groups. High-energy ESWT showed a greater ...

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