Randomized, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind clinical trial evaluating the treatment of plantar fasciitis with an extracoporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) device: A North American confirmatory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite numerous publications and clinical trials, the results of treatment of recalcitrant chronic plantar fasciitis with extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) still remain equivocal as to whether or not this treatment provides relief from the pain associated with this condition. The objective of this study was to determine whether extracorporeal shock wave therapy can safely and effectively relieve the pain associated with chronic plantar fasciitis compared to placebo treatment, as demonstrated by pain with walking in the morning. This was set in a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, confirmatory clinical study undertaken in four outpatient orthopedic clinics. The patients, 114 adult subjects with chronic plantar fasciitis, recalcitrant to conservative therapies for at least 6 months, were randomized to two groups. Treatment consisted of approximately 3,800 total shock waves (+/-10) reaching an approximated total energy delivery of 1,300 mJ/mm(2) (ED+) in a single session versus placebo treatment. This study demonstrated a statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the change from baseline to 3 months in the primary efficacy outcome of pain during the first few minutes of walking measured by a visual analog scale. There was also a statistically significant difference between treatments in the number of participants whose changes in Visual Analog Scale scores met the study definition of success at both 6 weeks and 3 months posttreatment; and between treatment groups in the change from baseline to 3 months posttreatment in the Roles and Maudsley Score. The results of this study confirm that ESWT administered with the Dornier Epos Ultra is a safe and effective treatment for recalcitrant plantar fasciitis.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".