MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2581441884 · doi:10.1097/mrr.0000000000000214

Efficacy of mesotherapy using drugs versus normal saline solution in chronic spinal pain: a retrospective study

2017· article· en· W2581441884 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Paola Emilia Ferrara, Gianpaolo Ronconi, Rossella Viscito, Romina Pascuzzo, Eugenia Roșulescu, Concetta Ljoka, Loredana Maggi, Giorgio Ferriero, Calogero Foti

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Rehabilitation Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineSalineRetrospective cohort studyDrugTherapeutic effectAnesthesiaSurgeryPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mesotherapy, or intradermal therapy, is a therapeutic approach that is gaining popularity, but there is still a significant lack of information on its mechanisms of action or the pharmacokinetics of the therapeutic regimens. This retrospective study on 220 records compared the short-term and long-term effects of mesotherapy using a mixture of drugs versus normal saline solution in the treatment of patients with chronic spinal pain (CSP). At the end of treatment, outcome measures showed a significant improvement (P<0.003) in both groups, which persisted at the follow-up assessments. At 12 weeks of follow-up, the improvement was significantly greater in patients treated with the drug cocktail than with the saline solution (P<0.05). Mesotherapy was effective in patients affected by CSP, with high patient satisfaction reported irrespective of the agent used. Considering the risks and costs of drugs, normal saline solution appears to be the best agent in cost-benefit terms for treating localized pain by mesotherapy in CSP.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.409 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations21
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Rehabilitation ResearchSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207