This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (23 JUN 2014)

Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Ultrasound and shockwave therapy for acute fractures in adults

  1. Xavier L Griffin*,
  2. Nick Smith,
  3. Nick Parsons,
  4. Matthew L Costa

Editorial Group: Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group

Published Online: 15 FEB 2012

Assessed as up-to-date: 12 DEC 2011

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008579.pub2


How to Cite

Griffin XL, Smith N, Parsons N, Costa ML. Ultrasound and shockwave therapy for acute fractures in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD008579. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008579.pub2.

Author Information

  1. University of Warwick, Warwick Orthopaedics, Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK

*Xavier L Griffin, Warwick Orthopaedics, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Clinical Sciences Building, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry, CV2 2DX, UK. x.griffin@warwick.ac.uk. xgriffin@mac.com.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 15 FEB 2012

SEARCH

This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (23 JUN 2014)

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Forest plot of comparison: 1 LIPUS versus control, outcome: 1.3 Time to fracture radiographic union (days): 'as reported' analysis.
[Figure 3]
Figure 3. Forest plot of comparison: 1 LIPUS versus control, outcome: 1.4 Time to fracture radiographic union (days): worst case analysis.
[Figure 4]
Figure 4. Forest plot of comparison: 1 LIPUS versus control, outcome: 1.5 Time to fracture union (days) subgrouped by operation: worst case analysis.
[Figure 5]
Figure 5. Forest plot of comparison: 1 LIPUS versus control, outcome: 1.7 Delayed or non-union (as reported analysis).
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 LIPUS versus control, Outcome 1 Time to return to work complete fractures (days).
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 LIPUS versus control, Outcome 2 Time to return to training / duty after stress fracture (days): as reported analysis (days).
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 LIPUS versus control, Outcome 3 Time to fracture radiographic union (days): 'as reported' analysis.
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 LIPUS versus control, Outcome 4 Time to fracture radiographic union (days): worst case analysis.
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 LIPUS versus control, Outcome 5 Time to fracture union (days) subgrouped by operation: worst case analysis.
[Analysis 1.6]
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 LIPUS versus control, Outcome 6 Time to fracture union (days) subgrouped by smoking status: worst case analysis.
[Analysis 1.7]
Analysis 1.7. Comparison 1 LIPUS versus control, Outcome 7 Delayed or non-union (as reported analysis).
[Analysis 1.8]
Analysis 1.8. Comparison 1 LIPUS versus control, Outcome 8 Pain at 8 weeks (VAS: 0 no pain to 10 worst pain).
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 ECSW versus control, Outcome 1 Non-union at 12 months follow-up.
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 ECSW versus control, Outcome 2 Pain at 3 months (VAS: 0 no pain to 10 severe pain).