Significance of Low-level Laser Therapy in Rotator Cuff Tendinitis: A Prospective, Single-blind Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This prospective, single-blind trial aims at assessing the efficacy of low-level laser therapy in rotator cuff tendinopathy. Materials and Methods : Fifty-four patients with painful impingement syndrome were equally divided into two groups, of which one was treated using an inactive machine via the placebo procedure (group A) and another from a functional machine (group B). The Range of Motion and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) questionnaires were implemented to conduct the comprehensive shoulder examination of the patients for four times within the research period of 2 months. Results: After one month of treatment, the patients in group B recorded better WORC score compared to group A (38 versus 46), which was significant ( P =0.03). However, after one more month, the score changed to 40 for group A and 36 for group B, which was not statistically significant. In each group, the WORC score changed after treatment with significant difference (P value=0.023 in group A and 0.04 in group B), but the difference between both the groups was not significant after the final visit. Conclusion: The results suggest that low-level laser therapy had no significant effect and acted primarily as a placebo treatment in rotator cuff tendinitis. Keywords: Laser, Physiotherapy, Shoulder, Tendinitis
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".