The Current State of Knowledge on the Clinical and Methodological Aspects of Extracorporeal Shock Waves Therapy in the Management of Post-Stroke Spasticity—Overview of 20 Years of Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many patients after stroke, spasticity develops over time, resulting in a decrease in the patient's independence, pain, worsening mood, and, consequently, lower quality of life. In the last ten years, a rich arsenal of physical agents to reduce muscle tone such as extracorporeal shock therapy (ESWT) wave has come through. The aim of this narrative review article is to present the current state of knowledge on the use of ESWT as a supplement to the comprehensive rehabilitation of people after stroke suffering from spasticity. The PubMed and PEDro databases were searched for papers published in English from January 2000 to December 2020, 22 of which met inclusion criteria for clinical studies related to post-stroke spasticity management with ESWT. A total of 22 studies including 468 post-stroke patients-11 reports with the upper limb (267 patients) and 10 reports within the lower limb (201 patients), as well as one report including both upper and lower limb. We focused our attention on clinical and methodological aspects. Therefore, we performed the assessment of enrolled studies in terms of methodological quality using the PEDro and level of evidence using the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines. Furthermore, we indicated implications for clinical practice in using ESWT for post-stroke spasticity management. Moreover, we discussed a suggestion for future research directions. In conclusion, an ESWT effectively reduces muscle tone in people with spastic limb after stroke. Further, ESWT is safe and free of undesirable side effects. The mechanism of action of ESWT on muscles affected by spasticity is still unknown. To date, no standard parameters of ESWT in post-stroke spasticity regarding intensity, frequency, location, and the number of sessions has been established. Further research, meeting the highest standards, is needed to establish uniform muscle stimulation parameters using ESWT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".