Efficacy and Safety of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for Orthopedic Conditions: A Systematic Review on Studies Listed in the PEDro Database
3 Sessions, High-Energy Protocol
SOURCE
https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldv047
REFERENCE
50
NICE
REFERENCE
123
organisation
British Medical Bulletin
TITLE
Efficacy and Safety of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for Orthopedic Conditions: A Systematic Review on Studies Listed in the PEDro Database
3 Sessions, High-Energy Protocol
SOURCE
https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldv047
DISC COMMENTARY
This systematic review examined trials listed in the PEDro database, a respected index of physiotherapy research, to identify which orthopaedic conditions have the strongest, most consistently repeated evidence supporting extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT).
What was studied?
The review compared which conditions ESWT had the strongest, repeated support for, and established the treatment protocol used in the best-supported studies, including session frequency, impulse count and energy level.
What did they find?
The strongest, most consistent evidence was for plantar fasciitis, Achilles tendon problems, tennis elbow, calcific shoulder tendonitis and other shoulder tendon problems. The best protocol was three sessions a week apart at the highest tolerable energy.
Why it matters
This gives a clear, evidence-graded picture of exactly which conditions shock wave therapy is best supported for, such as heel and tendon problems, rather than as a general-purpose option for any condition.
Why we included it
It demonstrates the value of matching a treatment to where the evidence is genuinely strongest, rather than offering it broadly across unrelated conditions just because it works well somewhere.
We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You can choose which categories to allow below. Cookies categorised as Necessary are always active.
We also use third-party cookies for analytics and advertising. These are only stored with your consent. You can update or withdraw consent at any time via the cookie icon at the bottom-left. This site operates under UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018, and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR). Cookie Policy • Privacy Policy
Always Active
Necessary cookies are required for core site features including security, network management, and consent storage.
Cookie
Duration
Description
hmdg_cookie_consent
180 days
Stores your cookie consent preferences.
PHPSESSID
Session
WordPress session identifier.
wordpress_logged_in_*
Session
WordPress login authentication.
Functional cookies enable enhanced features such as live chat and remembering preferences.
Cookie
Duration
Description
wp-settings-*
1 year
Stores user interface preferences.
Analytics cookies help us understand visitor behaviour. Controls analytics_storage for Google Analytics 4.
Cookie
Duration
Description
_ga
2 years
Google Analytics — distinguishes users.
_ga_*
2 years
Google Analytics 4 — session persistence.
_gid
24 hours
Google Analytics — distinguishes users.
_gat
1 minute
Google Analytics — throttles request rate.
Performance cookies collect aggregate, anonymous data about site performance.
Cookie
Duration
Description
_gat_gtag_*
1 minute
Google Tag Manager — rate throttle.
Marketing cookies track visits to deliver relevant ads. Controls ad_storage, ad_user_data, and ad_personalization.
What was studied?
The review compared which conditions ESWT had the strongest, repeated support for, and established the treatment protocol used in the best-supported studies, including session frequency, impulse count and energy level.
What did they find?
The strongest, most consistent evidence was for plantar fasciitis, Achilles tendon problems, tennis elbow, calcific shoulder tendonitis and other shoulder tendon problems. The best protocol was three sessions a week apart at the highest tolerable energy.
Why it matters
This gives a clear, evidence-graded picture of exactly which conditions shock wave therapy is best supported for, such as heel and tendon problems, rather than as a general-purpose option for any condition.
Why we included it
It demonstrates the value of matching a treatment to where the evidence is genuinely strongest, rather than offering it broadly across unrelated conditions just because it works well somewhere.