Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 362

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for the Treatment of Chronic Calcifying Tendonitis of the Rotator Cuff: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Gerdesmeyer, Ludger, Wagenpfeil, Stefan, Haake, Michael, Maier, Markus, Loew, Markus, Wörtler, Klaus, Lampe, Renee, Seil, Romain, Handle, Gerhart, Gassel, Susanne, Rompe, Jan D.·2003·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has been used to treat calcific tendonitis of the shoulder, but trials of ESWT for this purpose have had methodological deficiencies and thus there is limited evidence for its effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether fluoroscopy-guided ESWT improves function, reduces pain, and diminishes the size of calcific deposits in patients with chronic calcific tendonitis of the shoulder. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted between February 1997 and March 2001 among 144 patients (of 164 screened) recruited from referring primary care physicians, orthopedic surgeons, and sports physicians in 7 orthopedic departments in Germany and Austria. INTERVENTIONS: Either high-energy ESWT, low-energy ESWT, or placebo (sham treatment). The 2 ESWT groups received the same cumulative energy dose. Patients in all 3 groups received 2 treatment sessions approximately 2 weeks apart, followed by physical therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was the change in the mean Constant and Murley Scale (CMS) score from baseline to 6 months after the intervention. Secondary end points were changes in the mean CMS scores at 3 and 12 months, as well as changes in self-rated pain and radiographic change in size of calcific deposits at 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: Of 144 patients enrolled, all completed treatment as randomized and 134 completed the 6-month follow-up. Both high-energy and low-energy ESWT resulted in significant improvement in the 6-month mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) CMS score compared with sham treatment (high-energy ESWT: 31.0 [26.7-35.3] points; low-energy ESWT: 15.0 [10.2-19.8] points; sham treatment: 6.6 [1.4-11.8] points; P<.001 for both comparisons). Patients who received high-energy ESWT also had significant 6-month CMS improvements compared with those who received low-energy ESWT (P<.001). We found similar results for both the 3-month and 12-month CMS comparisons, as well as for self-rated pain and radiographic changes at 3, 6, and 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Both high-energy and low-energy ESWT appeared to provide a beneficial effect on shoulder function, as well as on self-rated pain and diminished size of calcifications, compared with placebo. Furthermore, high-energy ESWT appeared to be superior to low-energy ESWT.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.290.19.2573

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 362

Metadata

Authors
Gerdesmeyer, L., Wagenpfeil, S., Haake, M., Maier, M., Loew, M., Wörtler, K., Lampe, R., Seil, R., Handle, G., Gassel, S., & Rompe, J. D.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2003-11-19
Volume
290
Issue
19
Pages
2573
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2122277587
Cited by
362
References
0
FWCI
12.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for the Treatment of Chronic Calcifying Tendonitis of the Rotator Cuff: A Randomized Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.290.19.2573
The paper
Gerdesmeyer, L., Wagenpfeil, S., Haake, M., Maier, M., Loew, M., Wörtler, K., Lampe, R., Seil, R., Handle, G., Gassel, S., & Rompe, J. D. (2003). Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for the Treatment of Chronic Calcifying Tendonitis of the Rotator Cuff: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.19.2573

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.