Injection Therapy Within A Physiotherapy Department: A Prospective Audit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:The purpose of this prospective study was to assess the effectiveness of an Extended Scope Physiotherapy practitioner injecting a variety of peripheral conditions and to gauge patients’ overall satisfaction with such a service. This prospective study examined 69 patients referred to a physiotherapist with training in injection therapy over a 6-month period. Patients were assessed for perceived pain levels and satisfaction at pre-injection and 1-month follow up.Results:The results indicated that there was significant difference between pre-injection and 1-month follow up Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores (p=0.0005) and between pre-injection and 1-month follow up Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire(SF-MPQ) scores (p=0.0005). The results also indicated a high overall satisfaction with such a service, 94% of patients being either quite or very satisfied with their treatment.Conclusion:The study supports the use of a physiotherapist with additional training injecting a variety of peripheral musculoskeletal pathologies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".