Focused ESWT compared with radial ESWT in patellar tendinopathy summary of evidence
| Outcomes | Comparisons | Relative effect (95% CI) | Patients /studies (n) | Quality of evidence (GRADE) | Clinical significance | |
| Average estimate /assumed risk in the ESWT group | Average estimate /assumed risk in the control group | |||||
| VISA-P score Follow-up: 7 weeks | Focused ESWT: mean±SD was 59.6±16.9 | Radial ESWT: mean±SD was 53.5±21.5 | MD 6.10 (−5.43 to 17.63) The difference was not clinically and statistically significant | 43/1 | ⊕ Very low1,2 | Very low level of evidence of no difference between focused and radial ESWT in VISA-P scores |
| Follow-up: 14 weeks | Focused ESWT: mean±SD was 63.6±24.2 | Radial ESWT: mean±SD was 58.4±22.1 | MD 5.20 (−8.67 to 19.07) The difference was not clinically and statistically significant | 43/1 | ⊕ Very low1,2 | Very low level of evidence of no difference between focused and radial ESWT in VISA-P scores |
| VAS score* Follow-up: 7 weeks | Focused ESWT: mean±SD was 3.2±3.5 | Radial ESWT: mean±SD was 3.6±2.6 | MD −0.40 (−0,25 to 1.45) The difference was not clinically and statistically significant | 43/1 | ⊕ Very low1,2 | Very low level of evidence of no difference between focused and radial ESWT in pain scores |
| Follow-up: 14 weeks | Focused ESWT: mean±SD was 3.4±3.5 | Radial ESWT: mean±SD was 3.0±2.7 | MD 0.40 (−1.47 to 2.27) The difference was not clinically and statistically significant | 43/1 | ⊕ Very low1,2 | Very low level of evidence of no difference between focused and radial ESWT in pain scores |
| Patient-ratedpain reduction** Follow-up: 7 weeks | Focused ESWT: MD from baseline was 1.2 points | Radial ESWT: MD from baseline was 0.5 points | Not estimable | 43/1 | N/A | ESWT: much improved PRP: minimally improved |
| Follow-up: 14 weeks | Focused ESWT: MD from baseline was 1.0 points | Radial ESWT: MD from baseline was 1.1 points | Not estimable | 43/1 | N/A | ESWT: minimal improved PRP: much improved |
*Pain scores are referred to 10 single-leg decline squats on injured leg.
**Cut-off points adjusted from Farrar et al. 44
1 Only one randomised controlled trial included in analyses.
2 Decreased level of evidence due to indirect comparison (both groups received a standardised eccentric training programme).
ESWT, extracorporeal shockwave therapy; GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation; MD, mean difference; N/A, not available; PRP, platelet-rich plasma.