Comparison of the effectiveness of local corticosteroid injection and extracorporeal shock wave therapy in patients with lateral epicondylitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Purpose] This study aimed to determine and compare the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy and local corticosteroid injection in patients with lateral epicondylitis. [Subjects and Methods] Sixty-four patients with lateral epicondylitis were randomly divided into extracorporeal shock wave therapy and steroid injection groups. Patients were evaluated using hand grip strength, visual analog scale, and short-form McGill pain questionnaire at baseline and at 4 and 12 weeks post-treatment. [Results] Both groups showed statistically significant increase in hand grip strength and decreases on the visual analog scale and short form McGill pain questionnaire overtime. There was no statistically significant difference in the percentage of improvement in hand grip strength and on the short-form McGill pain questionnaire between groups at 4 weeks post-treatment, whereas the extracorporeal shock wave therapy group showed better results on the visual analog scale. The percentages of improvements in all 3 parameters were higher in the extracorporeal shock wave therapy group than in the injection group at 12 weeks post-treatment. [Conclusion] Both the extracorporeal shock wave therapy and steroid injection were safe and effective in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. However, extracorporeal shock wave therapy demonstrated better outcomes than steroid injection at the long-term follow-up.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".