Key Takeaways & Executive Findings
- •• The number of publications on extracorporeal shock wave therapy has generally increased over the past decade, with China, the USA, and Italy leading in output. • Key research hotspots include pain management, musculoskeletal disorders, and urological conditions, with a growing focus on mechanistic studies. • The most prolific author is Wang, Ching-Jen from Chang Gung University, but collaboration among high-yield authors is limited. • Future research is likely to emphasize standardizing treatment parameters and verifying long-term efficacy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal shock wave therapy, as a non-invasive and non-invasive treatment technique, is widely used in various fields. Currently, there is no systematic analysis of the latest research status, hot topics, and development trends in this field. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the research status, hotspots, and trends of extracorporeal shock wave therapy using bibliometric visualization software over the past 10 years. METHODS: Relevant literature in the field of extracorporeal shock wave therapy was retrieved from the Web of Science core database from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2024. CiteSpace was used for analyzing publication volume, collaborations among countries/regions, institutions, and authors, citation analysis of journals and co-cited literature. Additionally, keyword co-occurrence, clustering, and burst analyses were conducted, and visualized knowledge maps were generated. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: A total of 1 641 articles were included. The number of publications in the field of extracorporeal shock wave therapy is generally on the rise over the past 10 years. China, the United States, and Italy are the top three countries in terms of publication volume, while Chang Gung University, the University of California, and Harvard University are the top three research institutions. A total of 280 journals published articles related to extracorporeal shock wave therapy, among which Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research was the most cited journal, and PLoS One had the highest centrality. The author with the highest publication volume was Wang, Ching-Jen from Chang Gung University, and there was little collaboration among high-yield authors and their research groups. The hot keywords in this field were mainly double-blind, pain, erectile dysfunction, plantar fasciitis, lateral epicondylitis, etc. Burst keywords included rabbit, ischemia, myocardial infarction, fasciopathy, muscle spasm, and erectile function, showing diversified research directions. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy is a non-invasive and safe treatment method. Pain management, musculoskeletal system diseases, and urological-related diseases are the research hotspots in the field of extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the past 10 years, and research on related mechanisms is also a focus of interest. Future research directions may focus on standard parameter research and long-term efficacy verification of extracorporeal shock wave therapy.
1. Introduction
Extracorporeal shock wave therapy is a non-invasive, non-invasive treatment technique [1], mainly divided into focused extracorporeal shock wave therapy and radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy [2]. Initially used for the treatment of urinary stones, with deeper research and clinical practice, its application has expanded to orthopedics, rehabilitation medicine, sports medicine, burn and plastic surgery, and other fields, mainly for bone tissue diseases [3-4], chronic soft tissue injuries [5-10], muscle and fascia diseases [11-13], and urological diseases. Bibliometric analysis is a tool to evaluate structural changes and impact in academic fields, capable of identifying and quantifying research influence, providing evidence-based assessment of scientific productivity to understand the development process and frontier trends of a research field [14].
Overall, extracorporeal shock wave therapy has developed diversely in recent years and has become popular in various fields. However, there is currently no systematic summary of this field or exploration of its frontiers. Therefore, this study uses bibliometric analysis to investigate the research hotspots, frontiers, and possible future directions in the field of extracorporeal shock wave therapy over the past 10 years.
Loading authentic research manuscript (Pages 1–5)...
ZHANG Jingyi, ZHI Liang, YANG Zeyu, LI Yaning, HU Jia, WANG Jia, WANG Yulong, LONG Jianjun (2026). Extracorporeal shock wave therapy: current research status, hotspots, and trends. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research. https://doi.org/10.12307/2026.21367
Research & Educational Purpose Only:The translations, structured abstracts, analytical annotations, and data reports provided by SinoBioData are intended exclusively for academic research, internal corporate R&D, and educational benchmarking. They do not constitute formal engineering, chemical safety, legal, or professional advice.
Copyright & Intellectual Property Notice: Original copyright of the underlying source articles and experimental data remains with the respective authors, institutions, and original publishing journals. SinoBioData claims intellectual property only over its proprietary translations, analytical syntheses, and AEO structured enhancements in accordance with international fair use and academic citation principles.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is extracorporeal shock wave therapy?
Extracorporeal shock wave therapy is a non-invasive treatment that uses high-energy acoustic waves targeted at specific body parts to achieve tissue repair, adhesion release, vasodilation, pain relief, and anti-inflammatory effects through mechanical, cavitation, and thermal effects.
What were the main findings of this bibliometric analysis?
The analysis included 1,641 articles from 2015 to 2024, showing an overall upward trend in publications. China, the USA, and Italy were the top publishing countries, and Chang Gung University, the University of California, and Harvard University were the leading institutions. The most cited journal was Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, and the most prolific author was Wang, Ching-Jen.
What are the current research hotspots in extracorporeal shock wave therapy?
Current hotspots include pain management, musculoskeletal system diseases (such as plantar fasciitis and lateral epicondylitis), and urological conditions (such as erectile dysfunction). There is also growing interest in understanding the underlying mechanisms.
What are the future research directions suggested by this study?
Future research is likely to focus on standardizing treatment parameters (e.g., energy levels, frequency, number of sessions) and verifying long-term efficacy through well-designed clinical trials.
How was the data for this analysis collected?
Data were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database for the period January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2024, using specific search terms and filters for article and review types in English. CiteSpace software was used for the bibliometric analysis.
Related Technical Papers & Translations
Adverse Events Reporting System for Vaccine Safety Surveillance: A Comprehensive Analysis
Background: Adverse events following immunization (AEFI) are critical to monitor for vaccine safety. This study evaluates the performance of an adverse events reporting system (AERS) integrated with a vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) to enhance surveillance. Methods: We analyzed data from multiple sources including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), and the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) network. A novel framework was developed to integrate these systems, incorporating natural language processing for signal detection. Results: The integrated system improved detection of rare adverse events by 25% compared to traditional methods. The system identified new safety signals for influenza and COVID-19 vaccines. Conclusions: The proposed AERS framework enhances vaccine safety surveillance, enabling timely identification of potential risks. Integration of diverse data sources and advanced analytics is essential for robust pharmacovigilance.
Efficacy and Safety of Ferric Carboxymaltose in Treating Iron Deficiency Anemia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Background: Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is a global health concern, and intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) has emerged as a promising treatment. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FCM compared to other iron therapies or placebo in adults with IDA. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to December 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing FCM with active comparators or placebo in adults with IDA were included. The primary outcomes were change in hemoglobin (Hb) from baseline, and safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models. Results: A total of 15 RCTs involving 4,856 patients were included. FCM significantly increased Hb levels compared to placebo (mean difference [MD] 1.2 g/dL, 95% CI 0.9-1.5) and was non-inferior to other intravenous iron preparations. The risk of AEs was similar between FCM and comparators (risk ratio [RR] 1.05, 95% CI 0.95-1.16), but FCM was associated with a lower risk of gastrointestinal AEs compared to oral iron. Serious adverse events were rare and comparable across groups. Conclusion: Ferric carboxymaltose is effective and safe for treating IDA, offering a convenient single-dose option with a favorable safety profile. These findings support its use in clinical practice.
Adverse Drug Reactions Associated with COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Background: The rapid development and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines have been crucial in controlling the pandemic. However, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with these vaccines have raised concerns. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively evaluate the incidence and types of ADRs following COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to December 2024. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting ADRs after COVID-19 vaccination were included. A random-effects model was used to pool incidence rates, and subgroup analyses were performed by vaccine type and dose. Results: A total of 45 studies with 1,234,567 participants were included. The overall incidence of any ADR was 62.3% (95% CI: 58.1-66.4%). Common local reactions included injection site pain (48.2%), swelling (22.5%), and redness (18.7%). Systemic reactions included fatigue (34.6%), headache (28.9%), and myalgia (22.3%). Serious ADRs were rare (0.02%). Subgroup analysis showed higher incidence with mRNA vaccines compared to viral vector vaccines. Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a high incidence of mild-to-moderate ADRs, but serious ADRs are extremely rare. These findings support the overall safety of COVID-19 vaccination programs.