Effectiveness of treatment rotator cuff tendinopathy using extracorporeal shock wave therapy – systematic review of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Rotator cuff tendinopathy is otherwise known as rotator cuff inflammation, which usually occurs as a result of sudden trauma or degenerative changes.One of the physical therapies used to treat rotator cuff inflammation is extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT).An increasing number of scientific studies of varying quality are emerging and need to be systematized on a regular basis.Aims: The aim of this review was to analyze the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of treating rotator cuff tendinopathy using ESWT. Material and methods:The systematic review was conducted in October 2023.After searching databases such as PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane Library, and applying eligibility criteria, out of 163 studies, 10 papers were included in the review.They were methodologically assessed using the PEDro scale.A total of 819 people with diagnosed rotator cuff tendinopathy were included in the study.The methodology of the study involved comparisons between groups applying different ESWT parameters or comparing ESWT with other treatments.Pain and shoulder function assessment scales were used to evaluate efficacy.Some studies were supported by radiological evaluation. Results:The study showed that the use of ESWT in rotator cuff tendinopathy is an effective treatment method.A positive therapeutic effect was evident in both short-and long-term follow-up.High-energy ESWT had a higher treatment efficacy than low-energy ESWT.Conclusions: The results of this review clearly indicate that ESWT is highly effective in the treatment of rotator cuff tendinopathy.However, more randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are needed to determine a specific management protocol, including establishing treatment parameters and determining the number of treatment sessions on a large group of subjects.
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 | 0.020 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".