Long-Term Effectiveness of Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy in the Treatment of Previously Untreated Lateral Epicondylitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the outcomes of a cohort of individuals involved in a randomized control trial of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis (LE) not previously treated. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING: General population. PATIENTS: Sixty subjects (23 female, 37 male) who participated in a double-blind randomized control trial on the effectiveness of ESWT in the treatment of LE. All subjects had previously not received therapy for their LE. INTERVENTION: At the 8-week follow-up of a randomized control trial comparing ESWT with a stretching protocol for treatment of LE, all subjects were unblinded to their treatment allocation, and subjects initially allocated to sham therapy were offered active therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall elbow pain (10-cm visual analogue scale [VAS]) and maximum pain-free grip strength were evaluated at 0, 4, and 8 weeks and 3, 6, and 9 to 12 months postinitiation of therapy. Time to pain-free status (less than 1 cm on the VAS) was calculated from time of onset of symptoms, time of inclusion into the trial, and time from initiation of active therapy. MAIN RESULTS: A statistically significant difference in time to pain-free status was not detected between groups. Duration of symptoms was identified to be an effect modifier of early response to therapy (at least 50% improvement on the VAS at 8-week postinitiation of therapy). A higher proportion of subjects treated within 16 weeks of onset of LE symptoms showed a response to ESWT than subjects treated after 16 weeks of onset of their LE symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ESWT with a stretching program is not supported by this study, with the possible exception of the possible interaction effect of time of ESWT initiation from the time of onset of symptoms, which requires 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".