Percutaneous Bioelectric Current Stimulation in the Treatment of Chronic Achilles Tendinopathy: Protocol for a Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Randomized Multicenter Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The consensus for the optimal treatment strategy for chronic Achilles tendinopathy (AT) is still debated and treatment options are limited. This results in a significant medical need for more effective treatment options. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to investigate the therapeutic effects of percutaneous bioelectric current stimulation (PBCS) on AT. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial will be conducted. A total of 72 participants with chronic (ie, >3 months) midpoint AT will be randomized and receive four PBCS sessions-either verum or placebo-over 3 weeks. Both groups will complete daily Achilles tendon loading exercises in addition to the intervention. Evaluation sessions will be completed at baseline and during the intervention (weeks 0-3). Self-reported outcome measures will be completed at follow-up at weeks 4, 12, 26, and 52. The primary outcomes are the Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment-Achilles questionnaire scores and statistical evaluation of intraindividual differences between baseline and 12-week evaluations after initial treatment of verum therapy compared to control. Secondary outcomes will assess Pain Disability Index scores; average pain, using the 11-point Numeric Rating Scale; return to sports; and use of emergency medication. RESULTS: The study began in May 2021. As of October 2022, we randomized 66 out of 72 participants. We anticipate completing recruitment by the end of 2022 and completing primary data analysis by March 2023. CONCLUSIONS: The study will evaluate the effects of PBCS on pain, physical function, and clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00017293; https://tinyurl.com/mvz7s98k. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/40894.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".