Usage of intra-articular corticosteroid injections for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a survey of pediatric rheumatologists in the United States and Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the current usage of intra-articular corticosteroid injections (IACI) by pediatric rheumatologists and the perceived disadvantages of and obstacles to IACI therapy. METHODS: We mailed a 32-item questionnaire to pediatric rheumatologists in the United States and Canada (n=201) to assess treatment strategies for the initial treatment of monoarthritis of the knee in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Information regarding the usage of IACI for all patients with JIA and physicians' perceptions of IACI therapy was obtained. Respondents were dichotomized into those who performed frequent pediatric IACI (greater than 50 IACI in the last 12 months) and those who did not. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-nine (64%) completed questionnaires were returned. IACI were recommended as one therapy for JIA by 99% of respondents, and 90% personally perform IACI. Frequent IACI were performed by 22%, and 15% had performed greater than 10 IACI in a single pediatric patient at one time. Those who did not perform frequent IACI were more likely to report concern about the pain of the procedure, the availability of nursing support, and their own comfort with performing the procedure; they were less likely to have performed greater than 20 pediatric IACI during fellowship training and evaluated fewer clinic patients per week. CONCLUSION: IACI are essentially universally recommended in the treatment regimen for JIA. However, there are differences in the usage of IACI among pediatric rheumatologists. The frequency of IACI use is associated with different perceptions of and training received in IACI therapy.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".