ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
High-Intensity Laser Therapy Versus Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy for Plantar Fasciitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlantar fasciitis is a prevalent musculoskeletal disease characterized by heel pain and functional impairment. Both high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) and extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) have demonstrated efficacy in managing plantar fasciitis; however, their relative effectiveness remains unclear. PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of HILT and ESWT for treating plantar fasciitis.
methodsA comprehensive literature search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Scopus was conducted from inception to 13 July 2025 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating both interventions. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the trials using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The primary outcomes of this study were pain intensity and foot function. The visual analog scale (VAS) was used for pain assessment. Foot function was evaluated by the total scores of the Foot Function Index (FFI) and American Orthopedic Foot & Ankle Society Scale (AOFAS) and the activities of daily living (ADL) subscale scores of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). Outcomes were assessed at the end of treatment and during short-, medium-, and long-term follow-ups. The meta-analysis utilized standardized mean differences (SMDs), assessed heterogeneity using the I
resultsFive RCTs met the inclusion criteria, with methodological quality scores ranging from 6 to 7 on the 10-point PEDro scale. In total, 120 participants received HILT and 116 received ESWT. Regarding pain intensity (VAS), no statistically significant differences were detected between HILT and ESWT at any time point, including short-term morning pain (SMD = -0.11, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.19,
conclusionsWhile the pooled results suggested a trend toward greater functional improvement with ESWT than with HILT in the short- and medium-term, the effect sizes were small. No significant between-group differences were observed in pain-related outcomes. Given the limited number of available trials and variability in treatment protocols, current evidence remains insufficient to draw definitive conclusions about the comparative efficacy of ESWT and HILT. Further high-quality, large-scale randomized controlled trials with standardized methodologies are needed to better inform clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.