Investigating the Effect of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy on Reducing Chronic Pain in Patients with Pes Anserine Bursitis: A Randomized, Clinical- Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Knee pain, is one of the most common causes of patients’ referring to physiatric clinics, and several factors, are involved in its creation. One of these factors is pes anserine bursitis (PAB) for which various treatment methods are used. This study aims to investigate the effect of this method on reducing chronic pain in these patients. Materials and Methods: This clinical trial was conducted in 2013- 2014 on patients with PAB referring to academic, physical medicine clinics. The patients with chronic PAB (pain duration more than 3 months), who were refractory to conservative treatments, were randomly divided into two 20-member experimental groups (extracorporeal shock wave therapy [ESWT] and sham ESWT). Pain scores of all patients were measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) (total and present pain indexes [TPIs and PPIs]) before intervention, immediately after intervention (3 rd week), and after 8 weeks. The pain scores were then compared and statistically analyzed. Results: In the ESWT group, the mean patient pain score of the VAS and TPI in MPQ were significantly lower than in the sham ESWT group immediately after intervention (3 rd week): P =0.02, P = 0.04 respectively; and 8 weeks after the end of treatment: P =0.01, P = 0.000. Moreover, the PPI in both groups had significantly decreased over time, although in ESWT group this decrement was significantly more than sham ESWT group ( P < 0.001). Conclusion: The results showed that ESWT could be effective in reducing the pain and treating PAB.
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 | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".