Comparative Effectiveness of Focused Extracorporeal versus Radial Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy for Knee Osteoarthritis—Randomized Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both focused extracorporeal shockwave (f-ESWT) and radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy (r-ESWT) can alleviate symptoms in patients with knee osteoarthritis, but no trials have directly compared f-ESWT with r-ESWT for knee osteoarthritis. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of f-ESWT and r-ESWT on knee osteoarthritis. Forty-two patients with bilateral knee osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to receive three sessions of either f-ESWT or r-ESWT at 1-week intervals. The patients were evaluated at baseline and at 4 and 8 weeks after the final treatment. The primary outcome was the change in pain intensity, as measured on the visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), range of motion of the knee joint, and the 6-minute walk test. At the end of 4 weeks, the VAS score was substantially reduced in both groups (f-ESWT, -4.5 ± 2.5 points; r-ESWT, -2.6 ± 2.0 points), with a greater reduction in the f-ESWT group. Both groups showed significant improvement in secondary outcomes; however, the f-ESWT group yielded greater improvement in the VAS score, WOMAC score, and 6-minute walk test. Our results showed that f-ESWT was more effective than r-ESWT in improving pain and physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".