[Comparison of two different treatments of lateral humeral epicondylitis--"tennis elbow". A randomized controlled trial].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Many therapeutic interventions have been used in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis (LE), but to date, no specific intervention has proved universally efficacious. The aim of this study was to compare local corticosteroid injections versus splinting in a randomized controlled design. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixteen patients were treated with injections, and fourteen with a wrist splint. The patients were evaluated at inclusion and after six weeks with grip strength and pain scores. The patient's global assessment was used as a main indicator of improvement. RESULTS: No differences were noticed between the two groups. Most patients improved. A questionnaire after > 1 year showed that some patients still had pain complaints. DISCUSSION: We conclude that injections were as effective as splinting in LE. Splinting is recommended in the early stages of the disorder because of its lack of adverse effects. In the long view diagnostics regarding LE have to be refined in order to differentiate patients who are expected to benefit from different treatments.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".