The Effectiveness of Therapeutic Class <scp>IV</scp> (10 <scp>W</scp>) Laser Treatment for Epicondylitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Photobiomodulation has been shown to modulate cellular protein production and stimulate tendon healing in a dose-dependent manner. Previous studies have used class IIIb lasers with power outputs of less than 0.5 W. Here we evaluate a dual wavelength (980/810 nm) class IV laser with a power output of 10 W for the purpose of determining the efficacy of class IV laser therapy in alleviating the pain and dysfunction associated with chronic epicondylitis. METHODS: Sixteen subjects volunteered for laser therapy, or an identically appearing sham instrument in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical trial. Subjects underwent clinical examination (pain, function, strength, and ultrasonic imaging) to confirm chronic tendinopathy of the extensor carpi radialis brevis tendon, followed by eight treatments of 6.6 ± 1.3 J/cm(2) (laser), or sham over 18 days. Safety precautions to protect against retinal exposure to the laser were followed. The exam protocol was repeated at 0, 3, 6 and 12 months post-treatment. RESULTS: No initial differences were seen between the two groups. In the laser treated group handgrip strength improved by 17 ± 3%, 52 ± 7%, and 66 ± 6% at 3, 6, and 12 months respectively; function improved by 44 ± 1%, 71 ± 3%, and 82 ± 2%, and pain with resistance to extension of the middle finger was reduced by 50 ± 6%, 93 ± 4%, and 100 ± 1% at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. In contrast, no changes were seen until 12 months following sham treatment (12 months: strength improved by 13 ± 2%, function improved by 52 ± 3%, pain with resistance to extension of the middle finger reduced by 76 ± 2%). No adverse effects were reported at any time. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that laser therapy using the 10 W class IV instrument is efficacious for the long-term relief of the symptoms associated with chronic epicondylitis. The potential for a rapidly administered, safe and effective treatment warrants further investigation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".