MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Medicinal and Injection therapies for mechanical neck disorders

2004· review· en· W4241520125 on OpenAlexaff
Paul M. Peloso, Anita Gross, Ted Haines, Kim Hoang Trinh, C. H. Goldsmith, Peter Aker

Post-publication record

NatureRetraction
ReasonConcerns/Issues about Third Party Involvement;Notice - Limited or No Information;Removed;
Date5/21/2015 0:00
Flagged by OpenAlex?Yes

Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Medicinal therapies and injections are commonly recommended for neck pain, yet controversy persists over their effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of medicines and injections on pain, function/disability, patient satisfaction and range of motion in participants with mechanical neck disorders (MND). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (Issue 4, 2002), and MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, CINHAL from their start to March 2003. We scrutinized reference lists for other trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials with adults with MND, with or without associated headache or radicular findings. We considered medicinal and injection therapies, regardless of route of administration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected articles, abstracted data and assessed methodological quality using the Jadad criteria. Consensus was used to resolve disagreements. When clinical heterogeneity was absent, we combined studies using random-effects meta-analysis models. MAIN RESULTS: We found 32 trials that examined the effects of oral NSAIDs, psychotropic agents, injections of steroids, and anaesthetic agents. Overall, methodological quality had a mean of 3.2/5 on the Jadad Scale. For acute whiplash, administering intravenous methylprednisolone within eight hours reduced pain at one week, and sick leave but not pain at six months compared to placebo. For chronic MND at short-term follow-up, intramuscular injection of lidocaine was superior to placebo or dry needling, but similar to ultrasound. In chronic MND with radicular findings, epidural methylprednisolone and lidocaine reduced neck pain and improved function at one-year follow-up compared to the intramuscular route. In subacute/chronic MND, we found conflicting evidence of pain reduction for oral psychotropic agents compared to placebo or control. Single trials of eperison hydrochloride and tetrazepam showed positive results. Results for cyclobenzaprine were mixed. Diazepam did not show benefit. Other treatments including NSAIDS and nerve blocks had unclear or limited evidence of benefit. In participants with chronic MND with or without radicular findings or headache, there was moderate evidence from five high quality trials showing that Botox A intramuscular injections were not better than saline in improving pain (pooled SMD: -0.39 (95%CI: -1.25 to 0.47), disability or global perceived effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Intra-muscular injection of lidocaine for chronic MND and intravenous injection of methylprednisolone for acute whiplash were effective treatments. There was limited evidence of effectiveness of epidural injection of methylprednisolone and lidocaine for chronic MND with radicular findings. Oral psychotropic agents had mixed results. There was moderate evidence that Botox A intramuscular injections for chronic MND were no better than saline. Other medications, including NSAIDs, had contradictory or limited evidence of effectiveness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations37
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207