| (Abat et
al., 2016) |
Pain not
separated from VISA-P. |
VISA-P
↑ in both arms. USGET+ECC higher success (72.4% vs 36.1%,
χ2=10.3, p=0.001). Subgroup Δ (VISA-P<90):
MD +10.1 (95% CI 6.3–13.8, p<0.001). Subgroup Δ
(≥90): MD +29.2 (95% CI 13.4–24.7, p<0.001). |
RTS not
directly assessed. “Healed” defined as VISA-P ≥90;
50% healed at 28–56 d with USGET (2–4 sessions). At 42 d:
58.7% healed (USGET) vs 12.5% (Electro-physio), p<0.01. |
Not assessed. |
No AEs;
withdrawals NR. |
| (Bahr et
al., 2006) |
VAS0–10
during tests ↓ in both at 12m (all p<0.01); no between-group
diff. |
VISA-P
≈30→70 by 12m in both; no between-group diff (ANOVA p=0.87). |
No jump/leg-press
between-group diff; both ↑ strength to 12m. RTS distributions similar
at 12m. |
Not assessed. |
One post-op
quad pain; 25% ECC knees crossed to surgery. |
| (Biernat
et al., 2014) |
Pain reflected
by VISA-P. |
VISA-P
↑ with ECC (85→90 at 24w, p<0.05 vs control). Control
~NS. |
Jump height
/ power: NS. RTS NR. |
US: trend
to fewer morph changes / neovasc in ECC. |
No AEs;
no dropouts. |
| (Breda
et al., 2021) |
Pain during
tendon-specific exercise at 24w: PTLE 2 vs EET 4; diff=2 (95% CI 1–3),
p=0.006. |
VISA-P:
BL 55 both. 24w: PTLE 84 vs EET 75 (p=0.023). MCID (≥13): 87% vs
77% (NS). |
RTS: 24w
43% (PTLE) vs 27% (EET) (NS). |
Imaging
collected; results in supplement. |
Satisfaction
“excellent” higher with PTLE (38% vs 10%, p=0.009). No serious
AEs. |
| (Cannell
et al., 2001) |
VAS0–10
↓ both arms over 12w (p<0.01); NS between groups. |
No VISA
used. |
RTS: 90%
(drop squat) vs 67% (leg ext/curl) at 12w (NS). Strength: quads NS; hamstrings
↑ both (p<0.001). |
Not assessed. |
All completed
≥55/60 sessions; no AEs. |
| (Cunha
et al., 2012) |
VAS0–10:
ECC-with-pain and ECC-pain-free both ↓ at 8w/12w (p<0.05);
NS between groups. |
VISA-P
↑ both (p<0.05); NS between groups. |
RTS NR. |
Not assessed. |
17→14
completed. |
| (Frohm
et al., 2007) |
VAS0–10:
Device 4→0 (p=0.003); Decline 5→1 (p=0.008); NS between groups. |
VISA-P:
Device 49→86; Decline 36→75 (both p<0.001). |
One-leg
triple hop ↑ both (p<0.001). RTS: majority resumed. |
Not reported. |
No AEs;
full adherence. |
| (Jonsson
and Alfredson, 2005) |
VAS0–100:
ECC 73→23 (p<0.005); CONC 74→68 (NS). |
VISA-P:
ECC 41→83 (p<0.005); CONC 41→37 (NS). |
RTS: 9/10
tendons (ECC) satisfied & returned by 12w; 0/9 (CONC); all CONC later
needed surgery/sclerosing. ~32m FU: ECC VAS ~18; VISA-P ~88.5. |
Not assessed. |
CONC had
dropouts due to pain; ECC tolerated. |
| (Kongsgaard
et al., 2009) |
VAS0–10:
all ↓ at 12w; at 6m, CORT deteriorated; ECC maintained; HSR best
(lower pain vs CORT, p<0.05) |
VISA-P:
all ↑ at 12w; at 6m, CORT regressed; ECC stable; HSR highest (HSR
> CORT; ECC > CORT, p<0.05) |
Satisfaction
at 6m highest in HSR (73%) |
Thickness
↓ in CORT & HSR; Doppler ↓ CORT & HSR; collagen
turnover ↑ only in HSR (↑HP/LP, ↓pentosidine). Mechanics
unchanged. |
No AEs;
adherence high. |
| (Niering
and Muehlbauer, 2023) |
Pain-related
training interruptions: ALT fewer (0.1±0.3 vs 1.3±1.3; p=0.002,
d=1.16). |
Physical
performance improved in both; CODS improved more in ALT (left-leg interaction
p=0.007). |
ALT shorter
program (47±16 d vs 58±25 d). |
Structure
not assessed. |
Injury
incidence lower in ALT (p=0.023, d=0.82). Attendance ALT 96% vs CON 89%. |
| (Ruffino
et al., 2021) |
Provocative
VAS0–10 ~7→~3 at 12w both; NS between groups. |
VISA-P:
↑ both; NS between groups at 6/12w. PSFS ↑ both; EQ-5D / EQ-VAS
↑ both. |
CMJ, hop,
strength tests improved similarly; RTS NR. |
Patellar
AP diameter unchanged; neovasc distributions converged by 12w; NS between
groups. |
Adherence
high (88–90%); no AEs. |
| (Sánchez-Gómez
et al., 2022) |
VISA-P:
NS over time (p=0.202). |
—
(same as pain). |
CMJ ↑
(35.3→39.5 cm, p=0.031). Back squat: PPKG ↑ (55.0→73.6
kg, p=0.033); PP ↑ POST vs PRE (p=0.037, overall trend p=0.060);
PPMV NS. 5-RM ↑ (60.4→75.4 kg, p=0.001). |
US: thickness
↓ injured (7.74→5.69 mm, p=0.045); side-to-side diff resolved
by POST. |
~5.6
sessions/wk; no AEs. |
| (Gómez
et al., 2023) |
VISA-P
/ pain: NS for intervention, supplement, or interaction. |
— |
CMJ: significant
intervention×supplement (HMB ↑ ~+3 cm, p=0.049).
Back squat: PPKG ↑ overall (p=0.028). PPPP ↑ only in HMB (p=0.049).
5-RM ↑ both groups (p=0.001). PPMV NS. |
Body comp:
NS. |
No AEs;
small n=8; full adherence. |
| (van Ark
et al., 2016) |
NRS0–10
during SLDS: Isometric 6.3→4.0 (p=0.012); Isotonic 5.5→2.0
(p=0.003); NS between groups. |
VISA-P:
Isometric 66.5→75.0 (p=0.028); Isotonic 69.5→79.0 (p=0.003);
NS between groups. |
Athletes
maintained full in-season loads; GRC +2.3 (improved). |
Not assessed. |
Median
3 sessions/wk (~81%); no AEs. |
| (Visnes
et al., 2005) |
VISA-P:
no change ECC (71.1→70.2, NS) or control (76.4→75.4, NS);
transient week-1 pain dip only. |
Global
knee function: NS between groups. |
Jump tests:
small within-group CMJ both-legs +1.2 cm (p=0.046); other tests NS;
no RTS advantage. |
Not assessed. |
ECC compliance
~59% of prescription; low external load; one new PFP case; otherwise
safe. |
| (Young
et al., 2005) |
VAS0–100:
both improved at 12w & 12m (both p<0.05). At 12w step more
likely ↓ pain; at 12m groups similar. |
VISA-P:
both improved at 12w & 12m (both p<0.05). 12m: decline squat
had higher likelihood of ≥20-pt gain (94% vs 41%). |
Athletes
trained/competed; decline showed more durable functional benefit at 12m. |
Not assessed. |
Compliance
~72%; no AEs. |