The use of prolotherapy in the sacroiliac joint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this study the effectiveness of prolotherapy in the treatment of deficient load transfer of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) was determined. DESIGN: A prospective descriptive study. SETTING: Authors' private practice. PARTICIPANTS: 25 patients who consented to treatment and attended for at least one follow-up visit and assessment. STUDY PERIOD: From April 2004 to July 2007. INTERVENTION: Three injections of hypertonic dextrose solution into the dorsal interosseous ligament of the affected SIJ, under CT control, 6 weeks apart. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale, Roland-Morris 24, Roland-Morris 24 Multiform questionnaires and clinical examination by two authors independently. RESULTS: All patients included in this study attended at least one follow-up visit at 3, 12 or 24 months.. The number of patients at follow-up decreased at 12 and 24 months. Functional questionnaires demonstrated significant improvements for those followed-up at 3, 12 and 24 months (p<0.05). Clinical scores showed significant improvement from commencement to 3, 12 and 24 months (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This descriptive study of prolotherapy in private practice has shown positive clinical outcomes for the 76% of patients who attended the 3-month follow-up visit (76% at 12 months and 32% at 24 months). Similar results were found in the questionnaires (Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale, Roland-Morris 24 and Roland-Morris 24 Multiform questionnaires) at 3, 12 and 24 months.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".