MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550320159 · doi:10.1097/jsm.0000000000000399

Radial Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Is Effective and Safe in Chronic Distal Biceps Tendinopathy

2016· article· en· W2550320159 on OpenAlexafffund
John P. Furia, Jan-Dirk Rompe, Nicola Maffulli, Angelo Cacchio, Christoph Schmitz

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of Sport Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOntario Neurotrauma Foundation
FundersUniversity of PennsylvaniaSimon Fraser UniversityUSA Hockey Foundation
KeywordsMedicineExtracorporeal shock wave therapyTendinopathyBicepsPhysical therapyExtracorporealOrthopedic surgeryRehabilitationVisual analogue scaleSurgeryTendon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.396
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of Sport MedicineSame topicTendon Structure and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207