Impact of different approaches of epidural steroid injection on outcome of patients treated for low backache
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of epidural steroid injections through different approaches using pain relief and improvement in functional capacity as outcome measures. Materials and Methods: Sixty patients with low backache and unilateral radiculopathy were randomly assigned to three groups of twenty patients each, for undergoing lumbar epidural steroid injection (LESI) through midline, transforaminal, and paramedian approaches under fluoroscopic guidance. All the patients were assessed at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months postintervention using visual analog scale (VAS) score, Quebec disability score, and depression score. Results: The primary and secondary outcome measured in terms of improvement of VAS showed statistically significant reduction (P < 0.05) when compared to preprocedure baseline readings on both intragroup analysis (Groups I, II and III) at 1-week, 1-month, and 3-month follow-up. However, on intergroup comparison, the difference in improvement of VAS score noted was statistically insignificant with P value of 0.07 (Group I/II), 0.19 (Group II/III), 0.85 (Group I/III) at final 3rd month follow-up. In addition, intergroup comparison for secondary outcome showed statistically insignificant improvement (P value for Quebec score 0.73 [Group I/II], 0.34 [Group II/III], 0.79 [Group I/III] and depression score 0.78 [Group I/II], 0.67 [Group II/III], 0.98 [Group I/III]) at final 3rd month follow-up. Conclusions: All three LESI approaches proved highly effective individually in terms of short-term pain relief, improvement in the quality of life, and depression; however, none proved to be better than the other.
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 | 0.000 | 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".