Background: Plantar fasciitis is a prevalent musculoskeletal disease characterized by heel pain and functional impairment. Both high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) and extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) have demonstrated efficacy in managing plantar fasciitis; however, their relative effectiveness remains unclear. Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of HILT and ESWT for treating plantar fasciitis. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Scopus was conducted from inception to 13 July 2025 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating both interventions. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the trials using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The primary outcomes of this study were pain intensity and foot function. The visual analog scale (VAS) was used for pain assessment. Foot function was evaluated by the total scores of the Foot Function Index (FFI) and American Orthopedic Foot & Ankle Society Scale (AOFAS) and the activities of daily living (ADL) subscale scores of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). Outcomes were assessed at the end of treatment and during short-, medium-, and long-term follow-ups. The meta-analysis utilized standardized mean differences (SMDs), assessed heterogeneity using the I
2 test, applied the inverse variance method for pooling continuous variables, and employed a random-effects model because of the variable study methods used across the included articles. Results with
p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The I
2 test was used to objectively measure statistical heterogeneity, with I
2 ≥ 50% indicating significant heterogeneity. Results: Five RCTs met the inclusion criteria, with methodological quality scores ranging from 6 to 7 on the 10-point PEDro scale. In total, 120 participants received HILT and 116 received ESWT. Regarding pain intensity (VAS), no statistically significant differences were detected between HILT and ESWT at any time point, including short-term morning pain (SMD = −0.11, 95% CI −0.42 to 0.19,
p = 0.40), resting pain (SMD = 0.01, 95% CI −0.48 to 0.49,
p = 0.05), and activity pain (SMD = −0.08, 95% CI −0.41 to 0.26,
p = 0.89), as well as medium-term morning, resting, and activity pain (all
p > 0.05). For foot function (FFI), the pooled analysis of all studies showed no significant short-term difference (SMD = 0.37, 95% CI −0.22 to 0.95,
p = 0.01; I
2 = 73%); however, a subsequent sensitivity analysis, which excluded one studyreduced heterogeneity to 0% and revealed a significant short-term advantage of ESWT (SMD = 0.64, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.95,
p < 0.01). Medium-term FFI also favored ESWT (SMD = 0.53, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.92,
p < 0.01). Overall, the certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to low, mainly due to risk of bias and heterogeneity, as assessed by the GRADE approach. Conclusions: While the pooled results suggested a trend toward greater functional improvement with ESWT than with HILT in the short- and medium-term, the effect sizes were small. No significant between-group differences were observed in pain-related outcomes. Given the limited number of available trials and variability in treatment protocols, current evidence remains insufficient to draw definitive conclusions about the comparative efficacy of ESWT and HILT. Further high-quality, large-scale randomized controlled trials with standardized methodologies are needed to better inform clinical decision-making.
Full article