Trial reportClinical rheumatology2026
Comparison of the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy and high-intensity laser therapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a single-blind randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical rheumatology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this single-blind randomized clinical trial was to compare the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) on clinical parameters in knee osteoarthritis. PATIENTS AND
methodsA total of 60 patients aged between 40 and 75 years, diagnosed with primary knee osteoarthritis and admitted to the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Gaziantep University, were included in the study. Sixty patients were randomized into two groups using the envelope method. Group 1 received ESWT (3 sessions/week, total of 6 sessions), and Group 2 received HILT (5 sessions/week, total of 10 sessions) for a duration of 2 weeks. A standardized home exercise program was applied to all patients. Patients were evaluated before treatment, after treatment, and at the 6th week post-treatment using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the Lequesne algofunctional knee index. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), including t-test, chi-square, ANOVA, and Pearson correlation; significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsIn both groups, compared to pre-treatment values, significant improvements were observed in VAS (p < 0.001), WOMAC pain, stiffness, and physical function (p < 0.001), as well as Lequesne index scores (p < 0.001) after treatment and at the 6th week post-treatment. No significant differences were found between the groups in intergroup comparisons.
conclusionBoth ESWT and HILT are effective and safe treatment methods for reducing pain, disease severity, and improving physical function in knee osteoarthritis. Our findings support broader clinical use of both treatments, though further comprehensive studies are required. Key Points • In both the ESWT and laser groups, significant improvements were observed in VAS, WOMAC pain, stiffness, and physical function and Lequesne index scores at 6 weeks post-treatment compared to pre-treatment values. • In patients with knee osteoarthritis receiving ESWT and HILT treatment, improvement was achieved in terms of pain and functionality, but our study showed that neither agent was superior to the other.
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.