MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970259831 · doi:10.1227/neu.0b013e3182181e60

Spinal Cord Stimulation Is Effective in Management of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome I: Fact or Fiction

2011· article· en· W1970259831 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsRegina General HospitalUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOswestry Disability IndexVisual analogue scaleBeck Depression InventoryComplex regional pain syndromeQuality of life (healthcare)Spinal cord stimulationNeuropathic painDepression (economics)Physical therapyAnesthesiaDeep brain stimulationSpinal cordDiseaseAnxietyLow back painInternal medicineParkinson's diseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) I is a debilitating neuropathic pain disorder characterized by burning pain and allodynia. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is effective in the treatment of CRPS I in the medium term but its long-term efficacy and ability to improve functional status remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of SCS to improve pain, functional status, and quality of life in the long term. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 25 patients over a mean follow-up period of 88 months. The parameters for evaluation were visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) and Short Form 36 (SF-36), and drug consumption. Evaluations were conducted at point of entry, 3 months, 12 months, and last follow-up at 88 months (mean). RESULTS: At baseline, the mean scores were VAS 8.4, ODI 70%, BDI 28, EQ-5D 0.30, and SF-36 24. In general, maximum improvement was recorded at follow-up at 3 months (VAS 4.8, ODI 45%, BDI 15, EQ-5D 0.57, and SF-36 45). At last follow-up, scores were 5.6, 50%, 19, 0.57, and 40, respectively. Despite some regression, at last follow-up benefits were maintained and found to be statistically significant (P < .001) compared with baseline. Medication usage declined. SCS did not prevent disease spread to other limbs. Best results were achieved in stage I CRPS I, patients under 40 years of age, and those receiving SCS within 1 year of disease onset. CONCLUSION: SCS improves pain, quality of life, and functional status over the long term and consequently merits early consideration in the treatment continuum.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it