Table 8 Summary of comparative studies
From: Nonoperative treatment of insertional Achilles tendinopathy: a systematic review
Study | Year | Intervention | LOE | Previous treatment | Follow-up (month) | Evaluation and outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Costantino | 2005 | Cryoultrasound therapy vs. laser CO2 vs. t.e.ca.r. therapy | 3 | NR | 8 | VAS: 1.8 vs. 2.8 vs. 2.0 | n.s. |
Furia | 2006 | ESWT (high energy) vs. conservative (without ECC) | 3 | Failed | 12 | VAS: 2.8 vs. 7.0 | * |
| Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Satisfaction: 82.9% vs. 39.4% | * |
Rompe | 2008 | ESWT (low energy) vs. ECC training (full range) | 1 | Failed | 12 | VAS: 3.0 vs. 5.0 | * |
| Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | VISA-A: 79.4 vs. 63.4 | * |
| Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Satisfaction: 64% vs. 28% | * |
Notarnicola | 2012 | ESWT (low energy)+dietary vs. ESWT (low energy)+placebo | 1 | NR | 6 | VAS: 2.0 vs. 2.9 | n.s. |
| Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | AOFAS: 92.4 vs. 76.5 | * |
| Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Oximetry: 60.2% vs. 66.0% | * |
| Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Satisfaction: 93.8% vs.38.5% | * |
Notarnicola | 2013 | CHELT+ECC vs. ESWT (low energy)+ECC | 2 | None | 6 | VAS: 1.7 vs. 3.3 | * |
| Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | AOFAS: 83.0 vs. 76.9 | n.s. |
Kedia | 2014 | ECC (full range)+strengthening training vs. strengthening training | 2 | NR | 3 | VAS: − 2.19 vs. − 2.08 | n.s. |
| Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | SF-36 (bodily pain): 16.22 vs. 16.4 | n.s. |
| Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | SF-36: 9.78 vs. 10.27 | n.s. |
|  |  |  |  |  |  | FAOQ: − 0.73 vs. − 0.758 | n.s. |
McCormack | 2016 | ECC training+Astym vs. ECC training | 2 | None | 3 | VISA-A: 67.0 vs. 90.7 | * |
| Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | NPRS: 1.0 vs. 0.67 | n.s. |
| Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Satisfaction: 83.3% vs. 100% | n.s. |
Wu | 2016 | ESWT (low energy) vs. ESWT (low energy) (with Haglund’s deformity) | 3 | Failed | 14.5 | VISA-A: 83.9 vs. 67.8 | * |
| Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Likert: 1.57 vs. 2.37 | n.s. |
Erroi | 2017 | ESWT (low energy)+exercise (include ECC) vs. PRP+exercise (include ECC) | 3 | Failed | 6 | VAS: 1.5 vs. 2.6 | n.s. |
| Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | VISA-A: 86.5 vs. 82.0 | n.s. |
| Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Satisfaction: 87.5% vs. 71.4% | n.s. |
Pinitkwamdee | 2020 | ESWT (low energy)+conservative (without ECC) vs. conservative (without ECC) | 1 | Failed | 6 | VAS: 2.8 vs. 2.0 | n.s. |
| Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | VAS-FA: 77.2 vs. 82.7 | n.s. |
| Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Pain: 70.1 vs. 77.8 | n.s. |
| Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Function: 76.0 vs. 82.5 | n.s. |
| Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Other complaints: 85.8 vs. 87.9 | n.s. |
Zhang | 2020 | ESWT (low energy) (sports-active) vs. ESWT (low energy) (nonsports-active) | 3 | None | 60 | VAS: 0.3 to 1.6 | * |
| Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | VISA-A: 90 to 78 | * |