Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy versus Low-Level Laser Therapy in the Treatment of Plantar Fasciitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Plantar fasciitis is predominantly treated conservatively through modalities such as extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) and low-level laser therapy (LLLT), yet the short-term effect of these modalities on pain and function is still ambiguous. We compared the short-term effectiveness of ESWT and LLLT on pain and function in patients with plantar fasciitis. METHODS: Participants (n = 47) were randomly assigned to the ESWT group (n = 27) or the LLLT group (n = 20). Participants received ESWT (once a week) and LLLT (three times a week) for 3 weeks. The Foot Function Index, including the pain, disability, and activity limitation subscales, was administered at baseline and after treatment. A reduction of 1 point in total scores was considered a minimum clinically important difference. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to analyze the changes in outcomes and compare groups. RESULTS: There were significant main effects of time, and significant interaction effects between group and time on pain (P < .001), disability (P < .001), and activity limitation (P < .05). The main effect of group was not significant for all of the subscales (P = .811, P = .481, P = .865, respectively). The LLLT group showed significant declines in pain (P < .001), disability (P < .001), and activity limitation (P < .001), and there was no change in the ESWT group over time (P = .319, P = .711, P > .99, respectively). Consistently, 95% of participants in the LLLT group had a clinically important difference in the pain subscale versus 48% of the ESWT group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ESWT, LLLT was found to be superior as an effective approach in the short-term management of plantar fasciitis.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".