Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Is Effective in the Treatment of Bone Marrow Edema of the Medial Compartment of the Knee: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that shock wave therapy can produce a statistically significant improvement in symptoms and imaging features of the knee bone marrow edema syndrome (BMES) within 6 months of treatment. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eighty-six consecutive patients suffering from BMES of the medial compartment of the knee were prescribed a course of high-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and clinically followed up at 3 and 6 months and finally from 14 to approximately 18 months after treatment. Thirty-one patients were unable to undergo ESWT but returned for the 6-month and final follow-up; these were referred to as the conservative (control) group, while the other 55 patients constituted the ESWT group. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score of each patient were calculated at every follow-up. The BME area was assessed using magnetic resonance imaging before treatment and at the 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Statistically significant improvements were observed in clinical scores and in the BME area for both the ESWT and the control group (p < 0.05). The improvements in the ESWT group were statistically better in all parameters compared with the control group: the ESWT group had a reduction in the BME area of 86% versus 41% in the control group, the VAS pain score improved by 88% in the ESWT group versus 42% in the control group, and the WOMAC score improved by 65% in the ESWT group versus 22% in the control group. Clinical scores were significantly better for patients with medial tibial lesions in the ESWT group. CONCLUSION: In this study, ESWT reduced pain and the BME area in the knee, with significant clinical improvement noticed 3 months after treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".