MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360985808 · doi:10.5001/omj.2023.103

Effectiveness of Ultrasound-guided versus Anatomical Landmark-guided Genicular Nerve Block to Treat Chronic Knee Osteoarthritis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

2023· article· en· W4360985808 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

VenueOman Medical Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWOMACOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyKnee painPopulationRetrospective cohort studyChronic painCohortNerve blockSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: There is limited data on the relative effectiveness of different techniques used for administering genicular nerve block (GNB) for pain management of chronic knee osteoarthritis (OA) in the Malaysian population. This study aims to determine and compare the effectiveness of GNB administered using two pain management techniques—anatomical landmark-guided (ALG) and ultrasound-guided (USG)—for chronic knee OA in this population. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 40 patients with chronic knee OA who received GNB, 20 of whom underwent treatment with the USG technique and the other 20 with the ALG technique. Pain, stiffness, and functional limitation scores were assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Questionnaire (WOMAC) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11) at baseline and post-treatment day one, three weeks, and six weeks. Results: Both groups reported a significant reduction in WOMAC and NRS-11 scores as per their feedback on day one, three weeks, and six weeks post-treatment. Greater reductions in WOMAC and NRS-11 scores were reported by patients who received GNB via USG than by ALG technique, the difference achieving statistical significance at six weeks after treatment (p =0.026). Conclusions: GNB administration using USG and ALG techniques are both effective in significantly reducing pain, stiffness, and functional limitation in patients suffering from chronic knee OA. Among the two techniques, USG appears to be more effective. Nevertheless, GNB guided by ALG continues to be a viable treatment modality, especially in healthcare settings with limited to no USG facilities.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.282 · 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