Shockwave or Ultrasound Therapy for Tendinopathy? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background/Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to examine the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and ultrasound therapy in the treatment of upper and lower limb tendinopathies. Methods: The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251113976) and conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Electronic searches were performed in the PubMed, Embase, EBSCOhost, and Ovid MEDLINE databases up to August 2025, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Mean differences (MDs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic, and a random-effects model was applied. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Risk of Bias (RoB 2) tool, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: Fourteen RCTs involving 639 patients with tendinopathies were included. All studies were characterized by a high risk of bias. Very low-certainty evidence suggested that ESWT as monotherapy may reduce pain at rest compared with ultrasound therapy in patients with lateral epicondylitis (MD = −1.51; 95% CI: −2.71 to −0.31; p = 0.01), although the effect was highly heterogeneous (I2 = 89.8%; p = 0.002). In patients with upper- and lower-limb tendinopathy, ESWT combined with pharmacotherapy resulted in significantly lower pain intensity compared with ultrasound therapy combined with pharmacotherapy (SMD = −0.6; 95% CI: −1.07 to −0.14; p = 0.01). No significant differences in PRTEE (Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation) scores were observed between ESWT and ultrasound monotherapy in patients with lateral epicondylitis (MD = −1.06; 95% CI: −11.06 to 8.94; p = 0.83; I2 = 75.82%), or between ESWT combined with other conservative treatments and ultrasound combined with other conservative treatments (MD = 0.46; 95% CI: −10.22 to 11.15; p = 0.93; I2 = 0%). Conclusions: Very low-certainty evidence suggests that ESWT may be more effective than ultrasound therapy in reducing pain when used as monotherapy in lateral epicondylitis, despite substantial heterogeneity, and when combined with pharmacotherapy in upper- and lower-limb tendinopathies. In terms of function, ESWT appears to provide improvements comparable to those of ultrasound therapy, as assessed by PRTEE scores, in patients with lateral epicondylitis, both as monotherapy and when combined with other conservative treatments. However, significant methodological limitations substantially limit confidence in these findings.