MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Steroid Injections in the Management of Trigger Fingers

2005· article· en· W2083701232 on OpenAlexaffabout
André S. Nimigan, Douglas C. Ross, Bing Siang Gan

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTrigger fingerContext (archaeology)SurgeryComplicationDiabetes mellitusSteroidRetrospective cohort studyCorticosteroidInternal medicineEndocrinologyHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The most commonly used primary treatment for trigger fingers is corticosteroid injection in the flexor tendon sheath, followed by surgical release if unsuccessful. This study examines the surgical and nonsurgical treatment of patients with trigger fingers presenting to a large Canadian tertiary referral center. The treatment success and side-effect profile of steroid injection therapy and surgical release were examined in the context of comorbid illness, specifically, diabetes mellitus. DESIGN: Retrospective review of all patients with trigger finger who were seen by the senior authors between January 1999 and June 2004. RESULTS: In the study period, 118 trigger digits were treated. This study included 92 nondiabetic, 21 type 2 diabetic, and five type 1 diabetic trigger fingers. Of the 89 digits that received at least one steroid injection, 46 (52%) resolved completely and 42 (47%) were improved. Nondiabetic digits were treated successfully in 40 out of 70 digits (57%) with steroid injection therapy. Diabetic patients had a success rate of 6 of 19 (32%) with steroid injections, which is significantly lower than nondiabetics (P = 0.04). All type 1 diabetics (n = 5) required surgical treatment. Surgical treatment was successful in 71 of 72 (99%) digits. No side effects of steroid injection were noted, and short-term postoperative side effects were noted in 26 of 72 surgical patients (36%). No statistically significant differences were found in surgical complication rates in diabetics vs. nondiabetics or type 1 diabetics vs. type 2 diabetics. CONCLUSIONS: Steroid injection therapy should be the first-line treatment of trigger fingers in nondiabetic patients. In diabetics, the success rate of steroid injection is significantly lower. Injection therapy for type 1 diabetics was ineffective in this study. Surgical release of the first annular (A1) pulley is most effective overall in diabetics and nondiabetics alike, with no higher rates of surgical complications in diabetics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations109
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & RehabilitationSame topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207