A Randomized Controlled Trial for the Efficacy of Therapeutic Class IV Laser Treatment for Tendinosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is little consensus regarding effective treatments for tendinosis. Low level laser therapy (LLLT) has been shown to be effective at the cellular level, increasing cytochrome C oxidase production and reversing the effects of cellular inhibitors of respiration. Previous studies on LLLT have used class III lasers (output less than 0.5W); however, recently a dual wavelength (980/808 nm) class IV laser has been developed for use in LLLT (power output 10W). These instruments can deliver 8-9 J/cm2, achieving a photochemical biomodulatory dose in only minutes. The potential for a fast, safe and effective treatment warrants further investigation. PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of a class IV laser for the treatment of chronic epicondylitis. METHODS: Ten subjects volunteered to participate in a double blinded randomized study using LLLT (LiteCure LCT 1000), or an identical sham in which the laser was replaced with a red incandescent light. Subjects underwent clinical examination (measures of pain, range of motion, strength and ultrasonic imaging) to confirm the diagnosis of chronic tendinosis of the extensor carpi radialis brevis tendon followed by eight treatments of 10 J/cm2 over 18 days. The clinical exam was/will be repeated at completion of the treatments and at 3, 6 and 12 months post-treatment. RESULTS: No differences were noted between the two groups for any parameter before treatment. The mean duration of symptoms was 14.5±12 months, all subjects displayed pain and loss of strength and range of motion on the afflicted side, as well as ultrasonic evidence consistent with chronic tendinosis. There was a trend for increased strength (control change = -0.4±5.3 kg; LLLT change +0.8±3.7 kg; p<0.07) and decreased pain rating (change control = +0.6±3.3 units, 1/5 decreased pain; change LLLT= -2.6±3.3 units, 4/5 decreased pain; p<0.06) in the treatment group compared to the placebo group at the first post treatment exam. CONCLUSION: Preliminary results suggest that LLLT is efficacious for the treatment of chronic epicondylitis. However, it remains to be seen whether statistical significance will be achieved with a larger group and whether the ultrasonographic evidence will indicate improved tendon health at 3 months. Supported by a grant from LiteCure LLTTM
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".