Extracoporeal shockwave treatment decreases pain, functional limitations and medial collateral ligament thickness in subjects aged 50-70 years with knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundPain from knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) can have a significant impact on the physical function and quality of life of affected individuals worldwide. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) on pain, flexibility, function, and medial collateral ligament (MCL) thickness in knee osteoarthritis (KOA). MethodsA study of quasi experimental design was performed involving 15 subjects aged 50 – 70 years with Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2-3 KOA. All subjects were evaluated regarding baseline -pain using visual analogue scale (VAS), range of motion (ROM), functional outcome using Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), and MCL size. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy was given 3 times, at baseline, and 4 and 8 weeks after intervention. All subjects were given 4000 shocks at intensities of 1.5 – 4 Bar (raised gradually) per session. The shocks were given in the supine position, knee flexed 90o, without topical anesthetic. Statistical analyses were conducted using a dependent t-test. ResultsAfter 8 weeks of intervention, ESWT significantly improved pain score (p<0.01), WOMAC (p<0.01) and MCL thickness (p<0.01) in patients with OA of the knee. However, there was no significant difference in knee ROM, both for degree of flexion and extension (p>0.05). ConclusionThe use of ESWT for treatment of knee OA had a beneficial effect on pain relief, function outcome and MCL thickness. However, there remains a lack of clarity regarding the frequency and dosage levels of ESWT required to achieve 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".