MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320958325 · doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000000401

Nonoperative Management of Discogenic Back Pain

2014· review· en· W2320958325 on OpenAlexaff
Young Lu, Javier Z. Guzman, Devina Purmessur, James C. Iatridis, Andrew C. Hecht, Sheeraz A. Qureshi, Samuel K. Cho

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialLow back painSystematic reviewPhysical therapyPlaceboManual therapyMeta-analysisSurgeryMEDLINEAlternative medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Study Design. Systematic review of the literature. Objective. A systematic evaluation of the literature was performed to investigate current nonoperative management of the treatment of discogenic low back pain. Summary of Background Data. Back pain is a major health care concern with up to 39% being discogenic in origin according to one study. Nonoperative therapy is likely to be the initial treatment strategy for discogenic low back pain. Methods. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for clinical studies evaluating nonoperative methods of treating discogenic back pain that were published between 2000 and 2012. Only prospective randomized controlled studies that compared a nonsurgical intervention with sham or placebo therapy were included. After removal of duplicate citations, a total of 226 articles were initially identified from the search terms. From these, we identified 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from which data analysis was performed. Results. The 11 RCTs investigated traction therapy, injections, and ablative techniques. Results from 5 RCTs investigating methylene blue injection, steroid injection, ramus communicans ablation, intradiscal electrothermal therapy, and biacuplasty favored intervention over sham therapy. However, results from the study on methylene blue injections have not been replicated in other RCTs. Evaluation of the selection criteria used in the studies on ramus communicans ablation and intradiscal biacuplasty and a stratified analysis of results from the RCTs on intradiscal electrothermal therapy casts doubt on whether the conclusions from these RCTs can be applied to the general patient population with discogenic pain. Conclusion. There are few high-quality studies evaluating nonoperative treatments for reducing discogenic low back pain. Although conclusions from several studies favor intervention over sham, it is unclear whether these interventions confer stable long-term benefit. There is some promise in newer modalities such as biacuplasty; however, more inclusive studies need to be performed. Level of Evidence: 2 Although discogenic back pain causes a significant socioeconomic burden on society, there are few nonoperative management options. Systematic review of literature yielded 11 randomized controlled trials addressing this topic. Treatments including ablative therapy and physical modalities have been largely ineffective. Although there is some potential for long-term benefits with intradiscal methylene blue injections, further studies are needed to characterize its clinical effectiveness and safety profile.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.327 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations49
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207