Long-term Follow-up of Trigger Point Injections for Abdominal Wall Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Abdominal wall pain (AWP) is a common yet often overlooked source of abdominal pain. Trigger point injections (TPI) into the abdominal wall have been tried in the past. Few studies have looked at the long-term outcome from these injections. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on 110 consecutive patients who received TPI for abdominal pain at the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario. Outcomes from patients whose pain was due to AWP were determined. AWP was defined as fixed or localized pain and superficial or point tenderness (less than 2.5 cm diameter) or a positive Carnett sign (increased pain with tensing abdomen). The primary outcome was long-term efficacy of TPI. The number of diagnostic tests ordered to exclude AWP and the cost of investigating it were determined. Secondary analyses were done to determine if there were significant predictors of response to TPI. RESULTS: Eighty-nine of 110 patients who received TPI met the criteria for AWP. In those who met the criteria for AWP, the average age was 42 years, 84% were female, and the average length of follow-up was 25 months. The primary outcome shows that, at follow-up, 77% had some or complete relief and 23% had no relief. An average of 4.3 diagnostic tests per patient were ordered to exclude other causes of abdominal pain. Secondary analyses show that meeting the criteria for AWP (P<0.0005), the absence of gastrointestinal symptoms (P<0.025), and an upper abdominal location of pain (P<0.025) were statistically significant predictors of a positive response to TPI. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that TPI, in patients who meet criteria for AWP, are effective over the long term.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".