Comparison of shock wave therapy and corticosteroid injection in the treatment of greater trochanteric pain syndrome: A single-blind, randomized study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of the corticosteroid (CS) injection and shock wave therapy (SWT) in the treatment of greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS). Patients and methods: Between 2020 September and 2021 October, a total of 60 patients with GTPS (12 males, 48 females; mean age: 50.8±8.5 years; range, 34 to 65 years) were included. The patients were randomly assigned to two groups as the SWT group (n=32) receiving one session of SWT per week for a total of three weeks and CS injection group (n=28) receiving CS and local anesthetic. Both groups were evaluated using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) at baseline and three months and using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at baseline, three weeks, and three months. Results: The mean VAS, greater trochanter tenderness, and WOMAC scores of both groups were similar at baseline, while the third-week and three-month scores were significantly lower in both groups compared to baseline (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in the treatment efficacy between the groups (p>0.05). There was a similar improvement in SF-36 physical function, physical role difficulty, and pain subscales in both groups (p<0.05). Conclusion: Our study results show that both CS injection and SWT are effective modalities and none of the treatments is superior to each other.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".