SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2026
Efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy combined with conventional physical therapy for chronic low back pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the clinical effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) combined with conventional physical therapy (CPT) versus monotherapy for chronic low back pain (CLBP). Methods: A frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted in Stata/MP 18 using the Results: Fourteen RCTs reported pain score (VAS/NRS) and eight reported functional score (ODI); lower scores indicate improvement. According to SUCRA ranking, combined therapy ranked first for both pain relief (96.0%) and functional improvement (99.3%), followed by ESWT, CPT, and sham ESWT in sequence. Combined therapy (ESWT with CPT) provided greater pain relief than sham ESWT (SMD = -1.70; 95% CI: -2.69 to -0.71) and CPT alone (SMD = -0.88; 95% CI: -1.29 to -0.47). ESWT was also superior to sham ESWT (SMD = -1.22; 95% CI: -1.83 to -0.61). For functional improvement, combined therapy achieved significantly greater reductions in ODI than ESWT (MD = -3.60; 95% CI -6.70 to -0.51), sham ESWT (MD = -7.60; 95% CI: -14.00 to -1.12), and CPT (MD = -5.29; 95% CI: -7.53 to -3.06). Conclusion: Combined therapy shows promise for alleviating pain and improving function in patients with CLBP. ESWT may help reduce pain, but no significant effects on functional outcomes have been observed. However, more high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier 420251170304.
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.