4.5 Article

Effectiveness of extracorporeal shock-wave therapy for frozen shoulder A protocol for a systematic review of randomized controlled trial

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 98, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014506

关键词

effectiveness; extracorporeal shock-wave therapy; frozen shoulder; randomized controlled trial; safety; systematic review

资金

  1. Xi'an Municipal Health Bureau Research Project [J201901007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This systematic review aims to explore the effectiveness and safety of extracorporeal shock-wave therapy (ESWT) for patients with frozen shoulder. Methods: The sources of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and Websites of Clinical Trials Registry will be searched. All databases and other sources will be searched from inception to the date of the search will be run. Only randomized controlled trials of ESWT for frozen shoulder will be considered for inclusion in this systematic review. Two authors independently screen the studies, extract the data, and evaluate the methodology quality for included trials. If sufficient trials will be included with fair heterogeneity, the data will be pooled, and the meta-analysis will be performed by using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: This systematic review will assess the effectiveness and safety of ESWT for frozen shoulder. The primary outcome includes pain intensity. The secondary outcomes consist of shoulder function, quality of life, and also the adverse events. Conclusion: Its findings may provide latest evidence of ESWT for the treatment of frozen shoulder. Ethics and dissemination: No research ethics approval is required in this study, because it is a systematic review and will not use individual data. The results of this study are expected to publish at peer-reviewed journals.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据