Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to determine how effective surgery and injection therapy are in the management of chronic pain. METHODOLOGY: A standardized literature search identified seven systematic reviews of the literature and six randomized controlled trials to provide evidence about surgery and injection therapy for chronic pain. RESULTS: Some study subjects had highly specific diagnoses, whereas other study subject groups had nonspecific pain, including multiple conditions. The timing of treatment interventions was generally unclear, and few studies analyzed subgroups. Overall, there was a lack of methodologically sound studies of surgery and injection therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Standard discectomy compared with conservative treatment for proven disc herniation (< or = 1 year) and local triamcinolone injection for lateral epicondylitis (< or = 12 weeks) are both effective for pain relief (level 2). There was limited evidence of effectiveness (level 3) of intraoperative steroid at discectomy, epidural steroid injection for sciatica with low back pain, caudal steroid injection for low back pain, local glycosaminoglycan polyphosphate injection for lateral epicondylitis, intraarticular steroid injection for shoulder arthritis, subacromial steroid injections for rotator cuff tendinitis, nonspecific injections for painful shoulder, systemic growth hormone for fibromyalgia, and intravenous adenosine for fibromyalgia. There was limited evidence (level 3) that there is no additional benefit of adding steroid to local anesthetic in caudal epidural injections. There is limited evidence (level 3) that intravenous adenosine is ineffective for fibromyalgia. The remaining evidence was inadequate (level 4a) or contradictory (level 4b).
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".