Suppr超能文献

体外冲击波疗法与激光疗法治疗肌肉骨骼疾病的系统评价与荟萃分析

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy versus laser therapy in treating musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Ismail Hassan Mariam, Shafiek Mustafa Saleh Marwa, Hesham Sallam Mariam, Hesham Elkhodary Hadel, Mohamed Sayed Mazen, Samy Haidy, Hesham Mohamed Afnan, Said Ashour Ahmed, Mohamed Mosaid Esraa, Hassan Zaghloul Manar, Ramadan Elbathesh Esraa, Vaish Hina, Mohammed Abdullah A Alshehri, Ibrahim Abdelhamed Ahmed

机构信息

College of Physical Therapy, Misr University for Science and Technology, Giza, Giza, Egypt.

Faculty of Physical Therapy, Cairo University, Giza, Giza, Egypt.

出版信息

Lasers Med Sci. 2025 Apr 15;40(1):194. doi: 10.1007/s10103-025-04392-0.

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to compare the effectiveness of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy (ESWT) versus Laser therapy (Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) and High-Intensity Laser Therapy (HILT) in treating musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs). Systematic searches of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were performed in six databases from inception till February 2025. Two researchers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. Eligible studies had to report at least one of the following outcomes: pain, functionality, strength, range of motion (ROM), and quality of life (Qol). Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane Collaboration tool (RoB 2.0). Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager software version 5.4.1, and quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Twenty-eight RCTs involving 1,460 patients were included. The findings indicated that neither LLLT nor HILT showed a significant difference from ESWT in pain, strength, ROM, or quality of life. However, ESWT demonstrated a marginal statistically significant functional advantage over LLLT, but not over HILT. The GRADE certainty rating was rated as very low to moderate. According to GRDAE certainty rating, ESWT and laser therapies (LLLT and/or HILT) had equivalent effect in improving pain, strength, ROM, and Qol in patients with MSKDs, while ESWT had some short-term effects in improving functions more than LLLT but not than HILT. Large RCTs with higher methodological quality are needed to draw more incisive conclusions.

摘要

本系统评价旨在比较体外冲击波疗法(ESWT)与激光疗法(低强度激光疗法(LLLT)和高强度激光疗法(HILT))在治疗肌肉骨骼疾病(MSKDs)方面的有效性。从数据库建库至2025年2月,在六个数据库中进行了随机临床试验(RCTs)的系统检索。两名研究人员独立筛选标题、摘要和全文文章。符合条件的研究必须报告以下至少一项结果:疼痛、功能、力量、活动范围(ROM)和生活质量(Qol)。使用修订后的Cochrane协作工具(RoB 2.0)评估偏倚风险。使用Review Manager软件版本5.4.1进行荟萃分析,并使用GRADE方法评估证据质量。纳入了28项涉及1460名患者的RCTs。研究结果表明,在疼痛、力量、ROM或生活质量方面,LLLT和HILT与ESWT相比均无显著差异。然而,ESWT在功能方面显示出比LLLT有统计学意义的微弱优势,但比HILT没有优势。GRADE确定性评级为非常低至中等。根据GRDAE确定性评级,ESWT和激光疗法(LLLT和/或HILT)在改善MSKDs患者的疼痛、力量、ROM和Qol方面具有等效效果,而ESWT在改善功能方面比LLLT有一些短期效果,但比HILT没有。需要进行更多方法学质量更高的大型RCTs来得出更确切的结论。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/279c/12000203/bc1e81432b3a/10103_2025_4392_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验