The Treatment of Chronic Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy of the Shoulder with Radial Shockwave Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess the effects of radial shockwave therapy (RSWT) on shoulder function, pain, range of motion (ROM), and strength in patients with chronic rotator cuff tendinopathy (RCT). Design: One group pre-test post-test design. Methods: 24 subjects (17 males and 7 females) diagnosed with chronic RCT had their shoulder strength and ROM measured along with functional status via the Upper Extremity Functional Scale (UEFS) and shoulder pain with the P4 Scale and pain at rest, after activity, and overall improvement in pain using a visual analog scale (VAS) pre-treatment. Each subject was then treated with RSWT consisting of 2000 shockwaves set at an intensity of 2.5 bars, 10-15 Hz, and 11.5 Mp. The applicator was positioned so that treatment was completed over the insertion point of the supraspinatous muscle. Each subject received three treatments in total spaced one week apart over a three week period of time. Shoulder strength, ROM, UEFS, P4 and VAS scores for pain and overall improvement were measured again three months post-treatment. A Wilcoxen Signed Rank Test and Dependent t-Test was used to analyze the data comparing pre-treatment to post-treatment effects with an alpha level set at p<.05. Results: A significant improvement was found post-treatment in the UEFS score (Z=-3.895, p=.0001); in the P4 score (Z=-4.078, p=.0001); in the VAS for shoulder pain at rest (Z=-3.062, p=.002); shoulder pain following activity (Z=-4.138, p=.0001); and in the overall improvement in shoulder pain (Z=-4.11, p=.0001). A significant improvement was also noted in the ROM for shoulder flexion (t(23)=-2.075, p<.013); abduction (t(23)=-3.54, p<.002); internal rotation (t(23)=-2.503, p<.02); and external rotation (t(23)=-3.78, p<.001). A significant improvement was also noted in shoulder strength for abduction (Z=-2.585, p=.01) and external rotation (Z=-2.64, p=.008). Conclusions: RSWT offers a potential treatment option for patients complaining of chronic RCT. This therapeutic option has demonstrated the ability to improve shoulder function, decrease shoulder pain, and improve shoulder ROM and strength.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".