Shockwave treatment for medial tibial stress syndrome: A randomized double blind sham-controlled pilot trial.
Featured on Physle Daily · Tuesday, 20 October 2026
Medial tibial stress syndrome, a common lower-leg pain condition in runners, currently has no strongly supported treatment, so researchers tested whether shockwave therapy, a treatment sometimes used for tendon and bone-related pain, could help. In this pilot trial, 28 active adults with the condition were randomly assigned to receive either real shockwave therapy or a sham version, with neither participants nor assessors knowing which group they were in, over several sessions across nine weeks. At follow-up, the real treatment was not shown to be more effective than the sham for reducing pain during pressure or running, or for improving pain-limited running distance. Oddly, pain on palpation improved slightly more in the sham group, suggesting the inactive treatment may itself have had some effect.
Because this was a small pilot study, the findings are preliminary, and the authors suggest future research should include a true no-treatment comparison to clarify what, if anything, shockwave therapy adds beyond a placebo-like response.
If you've dealt with shin pain from running, often called medial tibial stress syndrome, you know how frustrating it can be when nothing seems clearly proven to help. This small study looked at shockwave therapy, a treatment sometimes used for stubborn pain conditions, to see if it worked better than a fake (sham) version of the same treatment. Twenty-eight active adults took part, with neither they nor the researchers assessing them knowing who received the real treatment.
The results showed no clear difference between the real and sham shockwave groups in pain during pressure, pain during running, or how far people could run before pain limited them. Interestingly, the sham group actually had slightly better improvement in pain when the shin was pressed, suggesting the inactive treatment itself may have had some effect, perhaps related to expectation or attention.
Because this was a small pilot study, these findings are preliminary and don't settle whether shockwave therapy truly helps with this condition.
This is a summary of research, not medical advice. Talk to your own healthcare provider about anything affecting your care.
This pilot trial addresses a question many physiotherapists face: whether shockwave therapy offers any benefit over placebo for medial tibial stress syndrome, a condition for which the abstract notes no high-quality evidence currently supports a particular intervention. In this double-blind, sham-controlled design, 28 active adults received either standard-dose or sham shockwave across sessions from week 1 through week 9, with outcomes assessed at baseline and week 10. The results found no statistically significant difference between groups in pain during running or pain-limited running distance, and the only isolated significant finding, a 1.1-point greater reduction in palpation pain in the sham group, favoured sham rather than active treatment, which the authors interpret as possibly reflecting a clinical effect of the sham intervention itself.
This raises the possibility that attention, expectation, or the ritual of treatment contributed to perceived improvement regardless of shockwave dose, though a true no-treatment arm would be needed to disentangle this. As a pilot study, this trial is best understood as informing feasibility and generating hypotheses rather than establishing treatment effectiveness; the small sample size limits confidence in any individual outcome, and the authors explicitly call for further investigation including a no-intervention control before conclusions about shockwave's clinical value can be drawn.
In this small pilot trial of 28 active adults with medial tibial stress syndrome, standard-dose shockwave therapy was not more effective than sham shockwave for pain or running distance.
Pain on palpation was reduced by 1.1 points (out of 10) more in the control (sham) group than the experimental group, a difference the authors describe as possibly reflecting a clinical effect of the sham itself.
No other statistically significant differences between groups were found, and as a pilot study this provides preliminary, exploratory evidence rather than a definitive effectiveness result.
Source
Journal of science and medicine in sport
Newman P, Waddington G, Adams R · 2017
doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2016.07.006