Trial reportRheumatology international2026
Comparative effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy and high-intensity laser therapy in trigger finger: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Rheumatology international, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Trigger finger (TF) is stenosing tenosynovitis causing pain and impaired hand function. To compare extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) as adjuncts to home exercise in TF. In this three-arm randomized controlled trial, patients were allocated to ESWT, HILT, or home exercise alone. Active modalities were applied for 3 weeks (nine sessions), and all groups followed the same exercise program. Assessments were performed at baseline, week 3, and week 12. The primary outcome was week 12 QuickDASH; secondary outcomes were VAS, Quinnell grade, grip strength, tip-pinch strength, Assessment of Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT), and Nine-Hole Peg Test (9HPT). Analyses included 116 completers (ESWT n = 39, HILT n = 45, home exercise n = 32). Week 12 QuickDASH scores differed significantly among groups (ESWT: 42.6 ± 18.3; HILT: 26.6 ± 16.5; home exercise: 51.2 ± 14.5; p < 0.001); effect sizes favored HILT versus home exercise (d = 1.60) and ESWT (d = 0.92). VAS scores were lowest in the HILT group at both follow-ups (p < 0.001). Quinnell grading favored HILT at week 3 (p = 0.009) and week 12 (p = 0.001). Grip strength was higher in both active-treatment groups than in home exercise at week 3 and week 12 (p = 0.007 and p < 0.001), whereas tip-pinch strength did not differ. PPT differed only at week 3 (p = 0.009), and baseline 9HPT imbalance was absent during follow-up. HILT may provide greater short-term improvements in pain and patient-reported function, while ESWT remains a useful non-invasive adjunct to home exercise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42455339What 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.