MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252554927 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003375

Therapeutic ultrasound for treating patellofemoral pain syndrome

2001· review· en· W4252554927 on OpenAlexaff
Lucie Brosseau, Lynn Casimiro, Vivian Welch, Sarah Milne, Beverley Shea, Maria Judd, George A. Wells, Peter Tugwell

Post-publication record

NatureRetraction
ReasonError in Analyses;Error in Data;Error in Results and/or Conclusions;Removed;
Date2/28/2013 0:00
Flagged by OpenAlex?Yes

Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioCanadian Foundation for Healthcare ImprovementUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialPatellofemoral pain syndromeMEDLINEMeta-analysisPlaceboCINAHLOdds ratioMassagePsychological interventionSurgeryInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic ultrasound is one of several rehabilitation interventions suggested for the management of pain due to patellofemoral pain syndrome. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and side effects of ultrasound therapy for treating patellofemoral pain syndrome. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Healthstar, Sports Discus, CINAHL, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the PEDro database, the specialized registry of the Cochrane musculoskeletal group and the Cochrane field of physical and related therapies up to December 2000 according to the sensitive search strategy for RCTs designed for the Cochrane Collaboration. The search was complemented with handsearching of the reference lists. Key experts in the area were contacted for further articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs), case-control and cohort studies comparing therapeutic ultrasound against placebo or another active intervention in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome were selected, according to an a priori protocol. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers determined the studies to be included based on a priori inclusion criteria (LB, VAR). Data were independently abstracted by the same two reviewers, and checked by a third reviewer (BS) using a pre-developed form. The same two reviewers, using a validated scale, independently assessed the methodological quality of the RCTs and CCTs. The data analysis was performed using Peto Odds ratios. MAIN RESULTS: The search retrieved 85 articles. Of the 8 that were potentially relevant, only one RCT, including 53 patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome, was included. All patients received exercises as a concurrent therapy. Ultrasound combined with ice massage contrast (n=13) was not statistically different from ice massage alone (n=16) in terms of patient-rated pain relief improvement, quadriceps and hamstring strength. In the ultrasound and ice massage group, 46% (6/13) reported improved pain relief compared to 31% (4/13) in the ice massage alone group. This difference of 15% does not meet international standards for clinically important improvement in osteoarthritis of 20%. Side effects were not reported. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound therapy was not shown to have a clinically important effect on pain relief for patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome. These conclusions are limited by the poor reporting of the therapeutic application of the ultrasound and low methodological quality of the trial included. No conclusions can be drawn concerning the use or non use of ultrasound for treating patellofemoral pain syndrome. More well-designed studies are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.184
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207