Impact of steroid and lidocaine injection in the sacroiliac joint in axial spondyloarthritis patients: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The value of steroid and lidocaine injection of the sacroiliac joint in axial spondyloarthritis patients on magnetic resonance imaging scores and clinical disease outcome measures is not yet well assessed. Patient and methods: Participants were randomly assigned into two groups; Group I received unilateral ultrasound-guided sacroiliac joint injection with .5% lidocaine hydrochloride mixed with triamcinolone. At the same time, group II received subcutaneous saline injection. All participants fulfilled the ASAS criteria for axial SpA and all had bone marrow edema of at least one sacroiliac joint at baseline. Outcomes measures were: Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), and Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) scores. Participants were assessed at baseline (before and after sacroiliac joint injection) and after three months. This clinical trial was registered on clinicaltrials.gov under the number NCT04895228. Results: In this study, a total of 61 participants were registered. There was a significant difference between both groups regarding pain, spine mobility, SPARCC, and ASDAS scores in favor of group I. Spine mobility showed the earliest improvement, followed by pain whilst SPARCC, and ASDAS scores showed improvement after three months. Higher disease activity, younger age, and shorter disease duration were all associated with better outcomes. Bilateral hip involvement was a predictor of poor response. Conclusion: Sacroiliac joint injection of lidocaine and triamcinolone in axial SpA patients is a cost-effective and practical technique for controlling pain, improving function, disease activity scores, and bone marrow edema with acceptable complications and relatively sustained effect.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".