Augmented Soft Tissue Mobilization vs Natural History in the Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of augmented soft tissue mobilization (ASTM) on the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. METHODS: This randomized clinical study assessed 27 subjects (12 men and 15 women) with lateral epicondylitis and were divided randomly into 2 groups. The experimental group (n = 15) received ASTM twice a week for 5 weeks. The subjects of the control group (n = 12) received advice on the natural evolution of lateral epicondylitis, computer ergonomics, and stretching exercises. Patient-rated outcome was assessed at baseline and after 6 weeks and 3 months using a visual analog scale and the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation. The function was assessed using the pain-free grip strength at baseline and after 6 weeks. RESULTS: Both groups showed improvements in pain-free grip strength, visual analog scale, and Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation. Sample size for larger future randomized clinical trial was 116 participants. CONCLUSION: A larger study investigating the same hypothesis is warranted to detect difference in the effects of these treatments strategies. The study design is feasible, and minor improvements will help to minimize the potential bias.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".