Short-wave diathermy in the clinical management of musculoskeletal disorders: a pilot observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Musculoskeletal disorders are the most common cause of pain and functional limitation in the general population. The study aim was to evaluate short-wave diathermy (SWD) effects on pain and quality of life in people with musculoskeletal disorders. Eighty participants (31 men, mean age 56 ± 12.49 years) were enrolled, recruiting from outpatient clinics at the Rehabilitation Unit, University Hospital, Padova. Inclusion criteria were pain lasting more than 15 days, pain visual analog scale (VAS) score higher than 50/100 mm, and a diagnosis of osteoarthritis, neck/back pain, or tendinopathies. All participants underwent ten sessions of percutaneous SWD, 3 times/week. Each session lasted 15-20 min, with frequencies of 4 or 8 MHz and heat intensity between 40 and 60 W. Outcomes were assessed before and after treatment. Primary outcome was pain reduction, evaluated by short form McGill pain questionnaire, which includes VAS and present pain intensity (PPI). Secondary outcome was improvement in social and work-related activity limitations. Participants were grouped based on classification of pain [nociceptive and neuropathic pain (group A) vs nociceptive only (group B)]. VAS and PPI improved significantly (p < 0.01). No difference in pain reduction (VAS and PPI) emerged between the groups. Limitations due to pain in work-related and non-work-related activities decreased (p < 0.01); use of pain medications was reduced at T1 vs T0 (p < 0.01). Our results suggest that SWD is effective in reducing musculoskeletal pain in the short term, providing relief and improving quality of life.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".