Evidence-Based Guideline for Neuropathic Pain Interventional Treatments: Spinal Cord Stimulation, Intravenous Infusions, Epidural Injections and Nerve Blocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Special Interest Group of the Canadian Pain Society has produced consensus-based guidelines for the pharmacological management of neuropathic pain. The society aimed to generate an additional guideline for other forms of neuropathic pain treatments.OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based recommendations for neuropathic pain interventional treatments.METHODS: A task force was created and engaged the Institute of Health Economics in Edmonton, Alberta, to survey the literature pertaining to multiple treatments. Sufficient literature existed on four interventions only: spinal cord stimulation; epidural injections; intravenous infusions; and nerve blocks. A comprehensive search was conducted for systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines; a critical review was generated on each topic. A modified United States Preventive Services Task Force tool was used for quality rating and grading of recommendations.RESULTS: Investigators reviewed four studies of spinal cord stimulation, 19 studies of intravenous infusions, 14 studies of epidural injections and 16 studies of nerve blocks that met the inclusion criteria. The task force chairs rated the quality of evidence and graded the recommendations. Feedback was solicited from the members of the task force.CONCLUSION: There is sufficient evidence to support recommendations for some of these interventions for selected neuropathic pain conditions. This evidence is, at best, moderate and is often limited or conflicting. Pain practitioners are encouraged to explore evidence-based treatment options before considering unproven treatments. Full disclosure of risks and benefits of the available options is necessary for shared decision making and informed consent.
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 | 0.022 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
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".