Effectiveness of intradiscal ozone injections for treating pain following herniated lumbar disc: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low back pain and sciatica caused by herniated lumbar discs (HLDs) are common complaints among patients visiting pain clinics. Among the various therapeutic methods, intradiscal ozone injections have emerged as an effective alternative or additional treatment option for HLDs. OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness of intradiscal ozone injections in the treatment of HLDs. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases for relevant studies published until January 25, 2024. We included studies that investigated the efficacy of intradiscal ozone injections in patients with HLDs. We evaluated the methodological quality of individual studies using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. RESULTS: At ⩾ 6 months after treatment, the therapeutic effect of intradiscal ozone injections in patients with HLDs was greater than that of steroid injections (treatment success rate, 6 months: odds ratio = 3.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] [2.44, 6.39], P< 0.01) or conventional medications (changes in the Visual Analog Scale [VAS], 6 months: standardized mean difference [SMD] = 1.65, 95% CI [1.08, 2.22], P< 0.01; 12 months: SMD = 1.52, 95% CI [0.96, 2.08], P< 0.01) but similar to that of microdiscectomy (changes in VAS, 18 months: SMD =-0.05, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.57], P= 0.87). At < 6 months after treatment, the reduction in the VAS score after intradiscal ozone injections was higher than that after steroid injections (changes in VAS, 1 month: SMD = 2.53, 95% CI [1.84, 3.21], P< 0.01). CONCLUSION: Intradiscal ozone injections may be a useful therapeutic tool in patients with HLDs. Compared with other conventional treatment methods such as steroid injections and oral medications, intradiscal ozone injection has great long-term (⩾ 6 months) effectiveness.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".