Application and efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave treatment for knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta‑analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing aging of the world population is accompanied by a rise in the incidence of knee osteoarthritis (KOA). There has been a growing interest in shockwave treatment for orthopedic diseases, including KOA. In previous trials, extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) was compared to physical therapy or placebo in the treatment of KOA. However, the efficacy and safety of ESWT for KOA remains disputed. The present meta-analysis assessed the effects of ESWT in KOA. The PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Research Gate and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify comparative studies involving ESWT for patients with KOA. The outcome indicators included the visual analog scale (VAS) score, range of motion (ROM), the Lequesne index (LI) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC). In the comparison of the ESWT vs. placebo groups, the primary outcomes included the VAS score and ROM, while the LI was the secondary outcome. In the comparison of the ESWT vs. physical therapy groups, the primary outcomes included the pain score and ROM, while the secondary outcome was the WOMAC index. Relevant data were analyzed using RevMan v5.3. The ESWT group had a lower VAS core, larger ROM and a better LI than the placebo group after 1 month of therapy (P<0.05). Furthermore, at 1 month post-therapy, the ESWT group had a lower VAS score, larger ROM and a better WOMAC than the physical therapy group (P<0.05). The outcomes regarding pain, ROM, LI and WOMAC were significantly different between the two different groups (P<0.05). The present meta-analysis suggested that ESWT may achieve a better therapeutic effect for patients with KOA as compared to physical therapy. However, high-quality trials with large sample sizes are essential to substantiate these results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| 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".