Shock Waves as a Treatment Modality for Spasticity Reduction and Recovery Improvement in Post-Stroke Adults – Current Evidence and Qualitative Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robert Dymarek,1 Kuba Ptaszkowski,2 Lucyna Ptaszkowska,3 Mateusz Kowal,3 Mirosław Sopel,1 Jakub Taradaj,4,5 Joanna Rosińczuk1 1Department of Nervous System Diseases, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland; 2Department of Physiotherapy, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland; 3Department of Physiotherapy, Opole Medical School, Opole, Poland; 4Institute of Physiotherapy and Health Sciences, Academy of Physical Education, Katowice, Poland; 5College of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, CanadaCorrespondence: Robert DymarekDepartment of Nervous System Diseases, Faculty of Health Sciences, Wroclaw Medical University, Bartla 5, Wroclaw 51-618, PolandTel +48 71 784 18 05Fax +48 71 341 95 33Email r.dymarek@gmail.comPurpose: This systematic review examines intervention studies using extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) application in post-stroke muscle spasticity with particular emphasis on the comparison of two different types of radial (rESWT) and focused shock waves (fESWT).Methods: PubMed, PEDro, Scopus, and EBSCOhost databases were systematically searched. Studies published between the years 2000 and 2019 in the impact factor journals and available in the English full-text version were eligible for inclusion. All qualified articles were classified in terms of their scientific reliability and methodological quality using the PEDro criteria. The PRISMA guidelines were followed and the registration on the PROSPERO database was done.Results: A total of 17 articles were reviewed of a total sample of 303 patients (age: 57.87±10.45 years and duration of stroke: 40.49±25.63 months) who were treated with ESWT. Recent data confirm both a subjective (spasticity, pain, and functioning) and objective (range of motion, postural control, muscular endurance, muscle tone, and muscle elasticity) improvements for post-stroke spasticity. The mean difference showing clinical improvement was: ∆=34.45% of grade for fESWT and ∆=34.97% for rESWT that gives a slightly better effect of rESWT (∆=0.52%) for spasticity (p<0.05), and ∆=38.83% of angular degrees for fESWT and ∆=32.26% for rESWT that determines the more beneficial effect of fESWT (∆=6.57%) for range of motion (p<0.05), and ∆=18.32% for fESWT and ∆=22.27% for rESWT that gives a slightly better effect of rESWT (∆=3.95%) for alpha motor neuron excitability (p<0.05). The mean PEDro score was 4.70±2.5 points for fESWT and 5.71±2.21 points for rESWT, thus an overall quality of evidence grade of moderate (“fair” for fESWT and “good” for rESWT). Three studies in fESWT and four in rESWT obtained Sackett’s grading system’s highest Level 1 of evidence.Conclusion: The studies affirm the effectiveness of ESWT in reducing muscle spasticity and improving motor recovery after stroke.Keywords: shock waves, neurorehabilitation, stroke, muscle spasticity, older adults, systematic review
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".