The Short-Term Efficacy of Large-Focused and Controlled-Unfocused (Radial) Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapies in the Treatment of Hip Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the classical treatments listed in the guidelines for osteoarthritis are widely used, the majority of patients do not fully recover from their pain. It is a fact that new treatment methods are needed both to relieve pain and restore deteriorated joint function. No study has been found to date that evaluated the efficacy of ESWT in hip OA. This pilot trial is the first in the literature to investigate the comparative effects of the two ESWT types (f-ESWT and r-ESWT) in the treatment of hip OA. Briefly, 148 patients were randomly distributed into the three ESWT groups: focused (f-ESWT), radial (r-ESWT), and sham (s-ESWT). Patients were assessed with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores just before the treatment (0 week), just after the treatment (4th week), and 1 month after completion of the treatment (8th week). VAS and all WOMAC scores were significantly reduced at follow-up points (4th and 8th weeks) in both the f-ESWT and r-ESWT groups compared with baseline (0 week) (for all, p < 0.001). Statistical comparisons between the f-ESWT and r-ESWT groups showed that f-ESWT was superior to r-ESWT for the decrease in VAS and WOMAC scores from baseline to the 4th and 8th weeks (p < 0.001 or p < 0.002). Both r-ESWT and f-ESWT were found to have significant treatment efficacy compared with s-ESWT. However, f-ESWT produced a superior improvement in follow-up parameters compared to r-ESWT.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".