Therapeutic efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave combined with hyaluronic acid on knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This retrospective study investigated the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shock wave (EPSW) combined with hyaluronic acid (HA) for patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA).This retrospective study included 70 patients with KOA. Of those subjects, 35 of them received EPSW combined HA, and were allocated to a treatment group, while the other 35 participants received HA alone and were allocated to a control group. Patients in both groups were treated for a total of 8 weeks. The primary outcome was measured by visual analog scale (VAS). The secondary outcomes were measured by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS). In addition, adverse events (AEs) were also evaluated. All outcomes were measured before and after the treatment.After the treatment, patients in the treatment group exhibited better efficacy in VAS (P < .01), WOMAC scale (pain, P < .01; function, P < .01; and stiffness, P < .01), and KOOS scores (pain, P < .01; function in daily living, P < .01; symptoms, P < .01; sport and recreation, P < .01; and quality of life, P < .01), than patients in the control group. In addition, no significant differences regarding the AEs were found between 2 groups.The findings of this study demonstrated that the efficacy of EPSW combined with HA is superior to the HA alone for patients with KOA.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".