The efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shockwave therapy in knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) has been widely applied for pain control in musculoskeletal disorders. Whether ESWT can improve pain relief and joint function for knee osteoarthritis remains controversial. Therefore, we designed a meta-analysis based on relevant studies to comprehensively analyze and determine the efficacy and safety of ESWT for knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: We identified relevant studies by an electronic search consisting of five English language databases: MEDLINE (1966 to July 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2019 Issue 2), EMBASE (1980 to July 2019), and PubMed (1946 to July 2019). The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was independently evaluated by two reviewers according to the criteria in the Cochrane Collaboration for Systematic Reviews. The quality of cohort and case-control studies was assessed by the Newcastlee-Ottawa scale (NOS). We performed statistical analysis by the Stata software, version 15. RESULTS: Three RCTs and three cohort studies involving 589 patients were included. The present meta-analysis indicated that ESWT was associated a significant reduction of pain score at 4 weeks (WMD = -0.436; 95% CI = -0.604 to -0.269), 8 weeks (WMD = -0.234; 95% CI = -0.447 to -0.022) and 12 weeks (WMD = -0.239; 95% CI = -0.436 to -0.043). There were significant differences between the two groups in terms of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index at 4 weeks (WMD = -3.107; 95% CI = -5.073 to -1.142), 8 weeks (WMD = -3.617; 95% CI = -5.760 to -1.475) and 12 weeks (WMD = -2.271; 95% CI = -3.875 to -0.667). CONCLUSION: The ESWT was efficacious and safe for reducing pain and improving knee function in patients with knee osteoarthritis, without increasing the risk of adverse effects.
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 | 0.019 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.051 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".