Efficacy of ultrasonography-guided compared to surface landmark-based corticosteroid injection for people with chronic pes anserine tendinitis or bursitis: a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aims One of the main aetiologies of patients' symptoms who have degenerative knee disease is pes anserine tendinitis or bursitis. Local corticosteroid injection is an effective treatment for chronic cases. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of an ultrasonography-guided corticsosteroid injection vs a landmark-based injection. Methods A total of 31 patients with clinical chronic (>3 months) pes anserine tendinitis bursitis, confirmed by ultrasonography, were randomised into two groups. One group received a corticosteroid injection (40 mg triamcinolone acetonide) with ultrasonographic guidance, and the other group received a corticosteroid injection without ultrasonographic guidance. Participants and the assessor were blind to the type of procedure. Participants were clinically assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster University knee questionnaire before and 2 weeks after the injection and a visual analogue scale before, 2 and 12 weeks after the injection. Results There were significant decreases for both groups in the visual analogue scale at 2 weeks and 12 weeks after the injection, with a superior decline in the ultrasound-guided group (mean difference: 60.00, P<0.001 in ultrasound-guided group, and mean difference: 25.33, P<0.022 in the surface landmark-based group). The Western Ontario and McMaster University questionnaire scores also demonstrated significant improvement in both groups, with no preferential difference between groups (mean difference: 26.87, P<0.001 in the ultrasound-guided group, and mean difference: 22.20, P<0.001 in the surface landmark-based group). Conclusions Steroid injection is an effective treatment to manage chronic pes anserine bursitis, and ultrasonography guidance may further improve clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".