Clinical Efficacy of Extracorporeal Shock Wave in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis： A Meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) by Meta analysis. Methods The CNKI database, Wanfang Data, China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), CBMdisc, PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for KOA. Outcome measures included overall efficiency, visual analogue scale (VAS), Lequesne index score, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index score (WOMAC), and incidence of adverse reactions. Literature screening and data extraction were carried out independently by two researchers, and the literature quality was evaluated according to the Cochrane Collaboration Network standard. RevMan 5.3 software was used for data analysis. Relative risk (RR) was used to analyze the binary variables; and the continuous variables with the same unit and measurement method were described by mean difference (MD), while the continuous variables with different measurement methods or units were described by standardized mean difference (SMD). The random-effects model was used for analysis when the included studies were heterogeneous (I2≥50%, P<0.1), and the fixed effects model was used when the included studies were homogeneous (I2<50%, P>0.1). Results A total of 13 RCTs with 1 132 cases were included, 577 in the observation group and 555 in the control group. The results of meta-analysis showed that the overall efficiency of the observation group was significantly higher than that of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant [RR=1.13, 95% CI(1.05, 1.22), P=0.000 8]; the Lequesne index score of the observation group decreased more significantly after treatment than that of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant [SMD=0.68, 95% CI(0.47, 0.90), P<0.000 01]; the VAS scores of the observation group were significantly lower than those of the control group after 1, 2 and 3 months of treatment, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.000 01); the decrease of WOMAC score in the observation group after 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 months treatment was more significantly than that of the control group (P<0.01); there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups [RR=0.42, 95% CI(0.13, 1.33), P=0.14]. Conclusion Extracorporeal shock wave therapy is safe and efficient in the treatment of patients with KOA, and is recommended for clinical application. Due to the quality limitations of the included studies, high-quality, multi-center RCTs with large sample size are still needed to verify the clinical effects in the future.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,017 | 0,025 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,018 | 0,052 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».