Incidence and Risk Factors of Systemic Adverse Effects and Complications of Ultrasound- and Fluoroscopy-Guided Glucocorticoid Injections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of the study are to assess the incidence of systemic adverse effects and complications of ultrasound-guided and fluoroscopy-guided glucocorticoid injections and to identify associated risk factors. DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study compared participants who received a glucocorticoid injection at the outpatient clinic and participants who had an appointment but did not receive a glucocorticoid injection. Participants were called to verify whether they had experienced any of the predetermined systemic adverse effects and complications. Multiple binary logistic regression was used to identify systemic adverse effect and complication risk factors. RESULTS: There were 1010 participants in the glucocorticoid injection group and 328 in the nonglucocorticoid injection group. There was no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of systemic infection and decompensated heart failure between the two groups. More participants in the glucocorticoid injection group developed abnormal uterine bleeding and erectile dysfunction, but the differences did not reach statistical significance. Female participants were 1.9 times more likely to develop systemic adverse effects ( P < 0.001). Younger age ( P < 0.001), diabetes ( P = 0.012), and higher glucocorticoid injection doses ( P = 0.024) were also associated with an increased risk of developing systemic adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Identified risk factors for developing glucocorticoid injection systemic adverse effects were younger age, female sex, diabetes, tobacco use, and high glucocorticoid injection doses.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".