Joint injection practice variations in pediatric rheumatology – a global survey and call for action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intraarticular injections (IAI) were first reported in adult rheumatology in the 1950s and subsequently gained acceptance as a safe and efficacious treatment in Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). IAIs are now widely performed and recommended as the initial or only treatment of oligoarticular JIA and ancillary treatment of actively inflamed joints in other varieties of JIA. However, the performance of the procedure is currently not guided by standardized recommendations, and several practice variations are observed. METHODS: This worldwide survey of pediatric rheumatologists (with 48.5% response from Pediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organization [PRINTO and Pediatric Rheumatology Collaborative Study Group [PRCSG] members) captures the differences in pre-procedural, procedural and post-procedural protocols and practices observed across the globe and asks the necessity of developing consensus in this area of Pediatric Rheumatology. RESULTS: This worldwide survey of Pediatric Rheumatologists had a response rate of just under 50% and the views of about 42% who routinely performed the procedure. It captured the differences in IAI protocols and practices observed across the globe. Significant variations in practice were noted in use of Local anesthesia, choice, and dose of therapeutic agent for the intraarticular injection and use of ultrasound to guide injections. While some practice variations may be explained by institutional protocols in different parts of the world, the clinical implications of these are largely unknown and beg the need for further studies. CONCLUSIONS: Given these practice variations, the authors recommend further studies to explore the cost and clinical implications and subsequently work towards developing consensus plans to ensure uniformity in this widely used procedure in Pediatric Rheumatology.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".