Combination Therapy Versus Exercise and Orthotic Support in the Management of Pain in Plantar Fasciitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed at estimating the effectiveness of two commonly used modalities-extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and low-level laser therapy (LLLT)-each combined with usual care (exercises and orthotic supports) in comparison to only usual care to relieve pain in patients with plantar fasciitis (PF). METHODS: for 3 sessions, once a week; LLLT group received gallium-aluminum-arsenide laser with 850 nm wavelength for 10 sessions, 3 times a week. Pain was measured by Foot Function Index-pain subscale (FFI-p) and Numerical Rating Scale for pain (NRS-p). The scores were recorded at baseline, third week, and third month after the treatment. Analysis was performed using repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in pain over the 3 months in all groups on both FFI-p ( P < .001) and NRS-p ( P < .001). In NRS-p, LLLT group had significantly lower pain than ESWT ( P = .002) at the third week and control ( P = .043) and ESWT ( P = .003) at third month. In FFI-p total score, ESWT group had higher pain than LLLT ( P = .003) and control ( P = .035) groups at third week and LLLT ( P = .010) group at third month. CONCLUSION: When LLLT and ESWT were combined with usual care, LLLT was found to be more effective than ESWT in reducing pain in PF at short-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, comparative study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".