Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy and Physiotherapy in Patients With Moderate Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) has recently been evaluated for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) treatment. The present study aimed to investigate the therapeutic effects of ESWT for the treatment of patients with moderate KOA compared with conventional physiotherapy (PT). Materials and Methods: In this randomized controlled clinical trial, a total of 75 adult patients (70 females and 5 males) with moderate KOA were randomly assigned to ESWT with exercise, PT with exercise, and exercise-only groups. Finally, patients were evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), knee range of motion (ROM), Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, and high sensitivity C-reactive protein. Results: In either treatment group, VAS, WOMAC, and TUG significantly improved toward 3 weeks and this improvement sustained until the 7-week follow-up session. In addition, patients’ knee ROM significantly improved in the ESWT group throughout the course of the study. Based on the results, no significant difference was observed between the ESWT and PT after 3 weeks and both were superior to exercise alone. In the 7-week evaluation, patients in the ESWT group reported lower pain (50.42% improvement in VAS compared to 30.31%; P<0.001 and 28.26%; P=0.008 in PT and exercise groups, respectively) and better improvement in knee extension ROM (P=0.004 and <0.001, respectively). Conclusions: In general, although PT and ESWT seem to be more effective than exercise alone in the short-term treatment of patients suffering from KOA, medium intensity ESWT is better than PT and exercise in the medium-term rehabilitation of these patients resulting in better pain-relieving and knee ROM improvements.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".