MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908789512 · doi:10.1097/ajp.0000000000000681

Effect of Local Anesthetic Versus Botulinum Toxin-A Injections for Myofascial Pain Disorders

2019· review· en· W2908789512 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Ahmed, Shoba Subramaniam, Kamaldeep Sidhu, Shereen Khattab, Dhanveer Singh, Jessica Babineau, Dinesh Kumbhare

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of Pain · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLocal anestheticMyofascial pain syndromeMyofascial painBotulinum toxinAnesthesiaAnestheticLocal anesthesiaPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Myofascial pain is a chronic pain disorder characterized by the presence of painful localized regions of stiff muscle and/or myofascial trigger points. Intramuscular myofascial trigger point injections are considered first-line treatments for myofascial pain. Common injectates include local anesthetics and botulinum toxin-A (BTX-A). The objective of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of local anesthetics and BTX-A on pain intensity in patients with myofascial pain. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic search of 3 databases, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Medline was conducted. The search was comprised of words to describe "myofascial pain" and "injections." We performed a meta-analysis comparing local anesthetic and BTX-A injections across these follow-up week periods: 0 (immediately following the injection), 1 to 2, 3 to 4, 5 to 6, 7 to 8, 9 to 10, 11 to 12, 16, 18, 24 weeks with local anesthetics and BTX-A as subgroups. We also performed subgroup analyses comparing the effectiveness of local anesthetic injections and BTX-A injections at various muscle locations and comparing the effectives of single versus multiple injection sessions. RESULTS: In total, 33 studies were included. A qualitative analysis suggested that local anesthetics and BTX-A were inconsistently effective at mitigating pain across all follow-up periods. The meta-analyses revealed that local anesthetic injections were more effective than BTX-A at mitigating pain intensity. Multiple injection sessions of local anesthetics were more beneficial than a single session. CONCLUSIONS: Additional studies are needed to determine sources of heterogeneity mediating the observed differences in effectiveness of local anesthetic and BTX-A injections among the studies. Additional replicative studies are also needed to delineate the relative efficacy and effectiveness of local anesthetic and BTX-A injection. The quantitative results of this study suggest that patients overall experience more pain relief with local anesthetic injections.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations35
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of PainSame topicMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207