Efficacy and Safety of Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy for Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) for treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA) using a systemic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: An extensive search of relevant articles from electronic databases Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to March 2019 was conducted. The treatment outcomes (visual analog scale [VAS] and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index [WOMAC]) of the included articles were pooled to calculate effect sizes. The assessment of heterogeneity among articles was evaluated using I2. Statistical analyses were conducted using RevMan software. RESULTS: The results showed that the ESWT group had significant improvement in pain relief compared with the control group through 12 months based on WOMAC and VAS scores. Compared with the baseline level, the patients had significant improvement in pain relief at most follow-up points (one week to 12 months) based on WOMAC and VAS scores. The patients showed significant improvement in physical function at six- and 12-month follow-up when compared with the control group and for all follow-up (one to 12 months) when compared with the baseline level. Additionally, only minor complications were observed after ESWT treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ESWT for treatment of knee OA had a beneficial effect on pain relief and physical function improvement for up to 12 months, and only minor complications occurred after ESWT treatment. However, there remains a lack of clarity regarding the frequency and dosage levels of ESWT required to achieve the maximum improvement.
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 | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".