MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980650708 · doi:10.36076/ppj/2019.22.139

A Prospective Randomized Comparison ofthe Efficacy of Ultrasound- vs FluoroscopyGuided Genicular Nerve Block for Chronic KneeOsteoarthritis

2019· article· en· W2980650708 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Physician · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Ulsan
KeywordsMedicineWOMACFluoroscopyOsteoarthritisNerve blockRandomized controlled trialKnee painSurgeryUltrasoundRandomizationProspective cohort studyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recently, genicular nerve block and radiofrequency ablation were introduced to alleviate knee pain in patients with chronic knee osteoarthritis. Both ultrasound- and fluoroscopy-guided genicular nerve blocks have been used. However, whether one is superior to the other remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: The present study compares the efficacy of ultrasound- vs fluoroscopy-guided genicular nerve blocks. STUDY DESIGN: This research used a prospective randomized comparison design. SETTING: The study took place at a single pain clinic within a tertiary medical center in Seoul, Republic of Korea. METHODS: From July 2015 to September 2017, a randomized controlled study was performed to analyze the difference in the efficacy of ultrasound- vs fluoroscopy-guided genicular nerve blocks. The Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), Global Perceived Effect Scales (GPES), and complications were evaluated pre-procedure, and 1 and 3 months after genicular nerve block. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients were enrolled and randomly distributed to groups U (ultrasound-guided, n = 40) and F (fluoroscopy-guided, n = 40). Those who were lost to follow-up or had undergone other interventions were excluded, resulting in 31 and 30 patients in groups U and F, respectively. No differences in NRS-11 or WOMAC were observed between the 2 groups at baseline or during the follow-up period. GPES and complication rates were also similar between both groups. LIMITATIONS: We were unable to perform double-blind randomization and did not evaluate patients' baseline emotional states. CONCLUSIONS: Pain relief, functional improvement, and safety were similar between groups receiving ultrasound- and fluoroscopy-guided genicular nerve blocks. Therefore, either of the 2 imaging devices may be utilized during a genicular nerve block for chronic knee pain relief. However, considering radiation exposure, ultrasound guidance may be superior to fluoroscopic guidance.The study protocol was approved by our institutional review board (2015-0369), and written informed consent was obtained from all patients. The trial was registered with the Clinical Research Information Service (KCT 0002846). This work was presented in part as D-H Kim's MS thesis at the University of Ulsan College of Medicine (2018). KEY WORDS: Genicular nerve block, ultrasound, fluoroscopy, knee osteoarthritis, Numeric Rating Scale, The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.252 · 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