Radial Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Is Effective and Safe in Chronic Distal Biceps Tendinopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy (rESWT) for chronic distal biceps tendinopathy (cDBT). DESIGN: Case-control study (level of evidence, 3). SETTING: SUN Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine. PATIENTS: Patients with a diagnosis of cDBT were recruited between January 2010 and February 2015. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received a single session of rESWT (2000 shock waves with energy flux density of 0.18 mJ/mm) or other forms of nonoperative therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients completed the visual analog scale (VAS), the modified QuickDASH (MQD) score, and the Roles and Maudsley (RM) score over a 12-month period. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients completed the final review at 12 months and were included in the study. Subjects ranged in age from 30 to 64 years. Mean pretreatment VAS scores for the rESWT and control groups were 8.3 and 8.5, respectively. Three and 12 months after inclusion in the study, the mean VAS scores for the rESWT and control groups were 3.4 and 5.6 (P < 0.001) and 2.7 and 4.7 (P < 0.001), respectively. Twelve-month follow-up MQD-Sports and MQD-Work scores for the rESWT and control groups were 3.7 and 1.7 (P < 0.001) and 3.8 and 1.8 (P < 0.001), respectively. Differences in mean RM scores were statistically significant between groups at 3 months after the treatment. There were no significant complications. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, rESWT is an effective and safe treatment for cDBT. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Radial ESWT as a novel, effective, and safe treatment for cDBT.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".