Effectiveness of Ultrasound-guided versus Landmark-based Glucocorticoid Injection in the Treatment of First Carpometacarpal Joint Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Osteoarthritis is a debilitating degenerative disease more pronounced in elderly affecting many joints. The first carpometacarpal joint (CMC1) is commonly affected. Pain is the major complaint, which can impact patient’s daily activities. Intra-articular glucocorticoid injection can be considered if conservative measures fail and ultrasound guided injection might be superior to the traditional anatomic landmark-guided technique. Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of ultrasound-guided versus landmark-based approach to intra-articular CMC1 injection using the Australian Canadian osteoarthritis hand index (AUSCAN). Methods: Adult patients diagnosed with symptomatic CMC1 osteoarthritis who failed conservative measures were enrolled. In this prospective observational cohort study, utilizing a convenience sample, intra-articular corticosteroid injection was administered either by ultrasound-guided technique or landmark-based approach. Pain, stiffness and function in 10-points scale at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks were collected and analyzed using descriptive analysis. Results: There were 33 patients enrolled. Mean age was 63 years, with females making up the majority of participants (n = 28, 84.8%). Mean duration of CMC1 pain was 10 months (SD=2.5) up to the point of receiving the injection. Ultrasound guided injection was performed in 60.6% (n=20), while 39.4% (n=13) had the landmark approach. Both groups achieved a statistically and clinically significant level of change in AUSCAN score at week 6 (P≤ 0.05) but with a recurrence of symptoms at week 12 (P ≤ 0.05). At both intervals the AUSCAN scores were better than baseline (P ≤ 0.05). There was no difference between the two groups regarding baseline pain VAS score (mean ultrasound group= 6.6 vs landmark group= 7.5; P = 0.18). No significant differences were identified between two groups in terms of changes from baseline to 6, 12 and between 6 to 12 weeks in pain, stiffness and hand function (P > 0.05). Conclusion: No difference was found between the ultrasound-guided and landmark-based approaches for CMC1 injection on pain score, stiffness, or function.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".