Comparison of a Physiotherapy Program Versus Dexamethasone Injections for Plantar Fasciopathy in Prolonged Standing Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of a physiotherapy-based exercise program versus dexamethasone injection for chronic plantar fasciopathy in workers standing for prolonged periods of time. DESIGN: A parallel group nonblinded randomized controlled trial with 12-week follow-up. SETTING: An outpatient sports medicine clinic in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-six workers required to stand for greater than 5 h/d with chronic plantar fasciopathy took part. Diagnosis from a physiotherapist must include signs of structural changes to the plantar fascia seen on ultrasound. INTERVENTIONS: The PHYSIO group included 7 physiotherapy-led exercises performed daily over a 12-week period. The INJECTION group received 1 palpation-guided dexamethasone injection followed by a daily routine of calf stretching. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI) scores 12-weeks postintervention and ultrasound-based measures of ligament appearance. RESULTS: At follow-up, both groups reported significant improvements in FADI and visual analog scales for pain at work and with activities of daily living at 6 and 12 weeks compared with baseline scores (P < 0.001). There were no significant between-group differences. There were no significant changes to plantar fascia thickness reported at the 6- and 12-week follow-up point. Both the number of cases with focal anechoic areas and the size of these anechoic areas improved significantly in the PHYSIO (P = 0.003) and INJECTION (P < 0.001) groups at 12-week follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Workers standing for prolonged periods experienced the same short-term therapeutic effectiveness with a physiotherapy-led exercise program compared with an injection of corticosteroid with stretching.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".