A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effects of Low-Dose Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the efficacy of low-dose extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) on osteoarthritis knee pain, lower limb function, and cartilage alteration for patients with knee osteoarthritis. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with placebo control. SETTING: Outpatient physical therapy clinics within a hospital network. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible volunteers (N=63) with knee osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence grade II or III) were randomly assigned to 2 groups. INTERVENTIONS: Patients in the experimental group received low-dose ESWT for 4 weeks while those in the placebo group got sham shockwave therapy. Both groups maintained a usual level of home exercise. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Knee pain and physical function were measured using a visual analog scale (VAS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the Lequesne index at baseline, 5 weeks, and 12 weeks. Cartilage alteration was measured analyzing the transverse relaxation time (T2) mapping. RESULTS: The VAS score, WOMAC, and Lequesne index of the ESWT group were significantly better than those of the placebo group at 5 and 12 weeks (P<.05). Both groups showed improvement in pain and disability scores over the 12-week follow-up period (P<.05). In terms of imaging results, there was no significant difference in T2 values between groups during the trial, although T2 values of the ESWT group at 12 weeks significantly increased compared to those at baseline (P=.004). The number and prevalence of adverse effects were similar between the 2 groups, and no serious side effects were found. CONCLUSIONS: A 4-week treatment of low-dose ESWT was superior to placebo for pain easement and functional improvement in patients with mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis but had some negative effects on articular cartilage.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".