Effect of High-Power Laser Therapy Versus Shock Wave Therapy on Pain and Function in Knee Osteoarthritis Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and high-intensity laser therapy (HILT), as outpatient physical therapy modalities, on knee osteoarthritis (KOA) patients. Materials and methods: The treatment program was completed by 40 individuals with stage II KOA (according to Kellgren and Lawrence) who were randomly allocated to one of two groups. They have had more than grade 3 pain on the visual analog scale (VAS) during activities for the last 3 months, with body–mass index less than 30 and no history of knee operation, fracture, cancer, or other neuromuscular or musculoskeletal diseases that may affect study results. The ESWT group (n = 20, mean age = 40.12 ± 9.45 years) received ESWT, 0.05 mJ/mm2, one session/week for 4 weeks, and the HILT group (n = 20, mean age = 46.62 ± 8.68 years) received HILT, 1500 mJ/cm2 in each session, three sessions/week for 4 weeks. Both groups received conservative physical therapy programs. Before and after 4 weeks of intervention, pain, physical function, and disability were assessed using a VAS, 6-min walking test, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Results: When the pre- and post-treatment mean values of dependent variables of both groups were compared, there were statistically significant improvements in both groups. Significant differences in the measured variables were also discovered in favor of the HILT group compared with the ESWT group. Conclusions: HILT showed a superior effect compared with ESWT on pain, physical function, and disability in chronic KOA patients. Pan African Clinical Trials Registry number: PACTR202007638955907.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".