Surgical and nonsurgical treatment for athletic tendinopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Athletic tendinitis, a misnomer, has been treated surgically and nonsurgically for many years by traditional methods. Many methods have been described, yet few have been proven by scientific evaluation. These methods are costly, time-consuming, poorly justified, and based on myth. The orthopaedic surgeon has relied on treatment such as ultrasound, laser, modallities, nonsteroidal anit-inflammatories and corticosteroids for nonsurgical treatment. The published studies have been poorly designed with few control groups, short follow-up periods, and small numbers of patients, which results in a loss of study power. Nonsurgical treatment for tendinopathies is almost always chosen over surgery. Nonoperative treatment for rotator cuff tendinitis, lateral epicondylitis, patellar tendinopathy, Achilles tendinosis, and plantar fasciitis has shown failure as high as 35%. Surgical treatment for such conditions have varied in the literature, with plantar fasciitis exhibiting a patient satisfaction as low as 48%. The reason for such variability in successful treatment and failure rate is the sparse and conflicting scientific evidence supporting the use of many common treatments. This review will outline some of the recent research results of nonsurgical and surgical treatments, and hopefully not only show a clearer picture, but shed new light on their use.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".