Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) in lateral epicondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Consensus has not yet been reached regarding the optimal nonoperative treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Physiotherapy is often utilized, yet the specific modalities used can vary significantly, making this treatment arm quite broad. The role and efficacy of passive physiotherapy by way of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) are not well understood. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) with no active treatment. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane were searched through till September 20, 2021. All English-language randomized trials comparing passive electrophysiotherapy treatments compared with no active treatment/placebo of patients >18 years of age with lateral epicondylitis with minimum 6-month follow-up were included. Results: = .139). Discussion: The available evidence does not support the use of passive electrophysiotherapy modalities, TENS or ESWT in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".