| Title |
Radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy for the treatment of finger tenosynovitis (trigger digit)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/oajsm.s108126 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nikos Malliaropoulos, Rosanna Jury, Debasish Pyne, Nat Padhiar, Jennifer Turner, Korakakis Vasileios, Maria Meke, Heinz Lohrer, Vasileios Korakakis |
| Abstract |
Stenosing tenosynovitis that is characterized by the inability to flex the digit smoothly, usually leads to prolonged rehabilitation or surgery. This case series is a retrospective cohort study. The aim of this case series was to evaluate the effectiveness of radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy (rESWT) for the treatment of stenosing tenosynovitis of the digital flexor tendon (trigger digit). A retrospective analysis of 44 patients (49 fingers) treated with an individually adapted rESWT protocol was conducted. Trigger digit pain and function were evaluated at baseline and 1-, 3-, and 12-months posttreatment. Recurrence and pretreatment symptom duration were analyzed. Significant reductions in pain scores and functional improvement were found between baseline and all follow-up assessments (P<0.001). Pretreatment symptom duration was significantly correlated with the number of rESWT sessions required (r=0.776, P<0.001) and 1-year posttreatment pain score (r=0.335, P=0.019). This study provides initial evidence that rESWT is an effective treatment for trigger digit, but randomised controlled trials are required to provide further evidence of this effect. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 69 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 23 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 14% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 24 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 March 2018.
All research outputs
#13,464,443
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine
#150
of 251 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,265
of 324,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 251 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,727 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.