MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Medicinal and injection therapies for mechanical neck disorders

2007· review· en· W2112483583 on OpenAlexaff
Paul M. Peloso, Anita Gross, Ted Haines, Kien Trinh, Charles H. Goldsmith, Stephen J Burnie

Post-publication record

NatureRetraction
ReasonConcerns/Issues about Third Party Involvement;Notice - Limited or No Information;Removed;
Date5/21/2015 0:00
Flagged by OpenAlex?Yes

Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityCanadian Memorial Chiropractic CollegeMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineJadad scaleWhiplashPlaceboNeck painRadicular painClinical trialAnesthesiaPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialSurgeryInternal medicineLumbarEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Controversy persists regarding medicinal therapies and injections. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of medication and injections on primary outcomes (e.g. pain) for adults with mechanical neck disorders and whiplash. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MANTIS, CINAHL from their start to May 2006; MEDLINE and EMBASE to December 2006. We scrutinised reference lists for other trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials with adults with neck disorders, with or without associated headache or radicular findings. We considered medicinal and injection therapies, regardless of route of administration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected articles, abstracted data and assessed methodological quality. When clinical heterogeneity was absent, we combined studies using random-effects models. MAIN RESULTS: We found 36 trials that examined the effects of oral NSAIDs, psychotropic agents, steroid injections, and anaesthetic agents. Trials had a mean of 3.1 on the Jadad Scale for methodological quality; 70% were high quality. For acute whiplash, administering intravenous methylprednisolone within eight hours of injury reduced pain at one week (SMD -0.90, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.24), and sick leave but not pain at six months compared to placebo in one trial. For chronic neck disorders at short-term follow-up, intramuscular injection of lidocaine was superior to placebo (SMD -1.36, 95% CI -1.93 to -0.80); NNT 3, treatment advantage 45% and dry needling, but similar to ultrasound in one trial each. In chronic neck disorders with radicular findings, epidural methylprednisolone and lidocaine reduced neck pain and improved function more than when given by intramuscular route at one-year follow-up, in one trial. In subacute and chronic neck disorders, muscle relaxants, analgesics and NSAIDs had limited evidence and unclear benefits. In participants with chronic neck disorders with or without radicular findings or headache, there was moderate evidence from five high quality trials that Botulinum toxin A intramuscular injections had similar effects to saline in improving pain (pooled SMD: -0.39, 95%CI -1.25 to 0.47), disability or global perceived effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The major limitations are the lack of replication of the findings and sufficiently large trials. There is moderate evidence for the benefit of intravenous methylprednisolone given within eight hours of acute whiplash, from a single trial. Lidocaine injection into myofascial trigger points appears effective in two trials. There is moderate evidence that Botulinum toxin A is not superior to saline injection for chronic MND. Muscle relaxants, analgesics and NSAIDs had limited evidence and unclear benefits.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations156
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207