MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033463698 · doi:10.1177/0363546513487066

Calcific Tendinitis of the Rotator Cuff

2013· article· en· W2033463698 on OpenAlex
Pieter Bas de Witte, Jasmijn W. Selten, Ana Navas, Jochem Nagels, Cornelis P.J. Visser, Rob G. H. H. Nelissen, M. Reijnierse

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Sports Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLeids Universitair Medisch Centrum
KeywordsMedicineRotator cuffCalcific tendinitisDashShoulder Impingement SyndromeAcromionCalcificationSurgeryRandomized controlled trialSubacromial bursaBursitisRotator cuff injuryShoulder jointInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff (RCCT) is frequently diagnosed in patients with shoulder pain, but there is no consensus on its treatment. PURPOSE: To compare 2 regularly applied RCCT treatments: ultrasound (US)-guided needling and lavage (barbotage) combined with a US-guided corticosteroid injection in the subacromial bursa (subacromial bursa injection [SAI]) (group 1) versus an isolated SAI (group 2). STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to the 2 groups. Shoulder function was assessed before treatment and at regular follow-up intervals (6 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months) using the Constant shoulder score (CS, primary outcome), the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH). Additionally, calcification location, size, and Gärtner classification were assessed on radiographs. Results were analyzed using the t test, linear regression, and a mixed model for repeated measures. RESULTS: This study included 48 patients (25 female, 52.1%; mean age, 52.0 ± 7.3 years; 23 patients in group 1) with a mean baseline CS of 68.7 ± 11.9. No patients were lost to follow-up. Four patients in group 1 and 11 in group 2 (P = .06) had an additional barbotage procedure or surgery during the follow-up period because of persisting symptoms and no resorption. At 1-year follow-up, the mean CS in group 1 was 86.0 (95% CI, 80.3-91.6) versus 73.9 (95% CI, 67.7-80.1) in group 2 (P = .005). The mean calcification size decreased by 11.6 ± 6.4 mm in group 1 and 5.1 ± 5.7 mm in group 2 (P = .001). There was total resorption in 13 patients in group 1 and 6 patients in group 2 (P = .07). With regression analyses, correcting for baseline CS and Gärtner type, the mean treatment effect was 20.5 points (P = .05) in favor of barbotage. Follow-up scores were significantly influenced by baseline scores. Results for the DASH and WORC were similar. CONCLUSION: On average, there was improvement at 1-year follow-up in both treatment groups, but clinical and radiographic results were significantly better in the barbotage group.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.280 · 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