A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Physical Therapy With Independent Home Stretching for Plantar Fasciitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although formal physical therapy (PT) is effective in treating plantar fasciitis (PF), it is unclear how this compares with home-based plantar fascia stretching (HS). METHODS: Fifty-seven patients with PF were enrolled in a prospective randomized trial comparing PT with HS. Visual analog scale (VAS), Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), and Short Form (36) Health Survey (SF-36) scores were analyzed at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. RESULTS: At 6 months, VAS improved in both HS (35% decrease; P < 0.001) and PT (26% decrease; P = 0.002) relative to baseline. FAAM Activities of Daily Living scores improved 13.0% (P = 0.005) in HS and 21.3% (P < 0.001) in PT at 6 months relative to baseline. The SF-36 Physical Component Summary Scores demonstrated improvement at all time points in both groups. There were no notable intergroup differences in VAS, FAAM, or SF-36 at any time point. DICUSSION: The clinical outcomes of a home stretching protocol and PT did not markedly differ for the treatment of PF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".