Evidence for miniscalpel-needle/needle knife in the management of chronic pain related conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to determine the effect of miniscalpel-needle/needle-knife in treatment of chronic pain symptoms. METHODS: The following electronic databases will be searched by 2 independent reviewers: PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Springer, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM). All randomized controlled trials on miniscalpel-needle/need-knife for chronic pain published in electronic databases from inception to August 1, 2019 with language restricted in Chinses and English will be included in the study.Methodologic quality is assessed by 2 blinded reviewers independently screen and score the articles using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale and the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. A meta-analysis was performed when there is sufficient clinical homogeneity in at least 2 studies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach is used to rate the body of evidence in each meta-analysis. When the quantitive evaluation is not available, a qualitative description of the results of single study is provided. RESULTS: A high-quality synthesis of current evidence of miniscapel-needle/needle-knife treating chronic pain will be illustrated using subjective reports and objective measures of performance. The primary outcomes consisted of pain intensity improvement rate clinically meaningful improvements in pain and disability are also noted. Secondary outcomes involve the short form of McGill Pain Questionnaire score (SF-MPQ) and the side effects. CONCLUSION: This protocol will present the evidence of whether miniscalpel-needle/needle-knife is an effective intervention for chronic pain. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019129076.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".