MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED COMPARISON OF THE EFFICACY BETWEEN ULTRASOUND- AND FLUOROSCOPY-GUIDED GENICULAR NERVE BLOCK FOR CHRONIC KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS

2017· other· en· W6908405551 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWOMACOsteoarthritisRandomizationRandomized controlled trialNerve blockProspective cohort studyComplicationKnee pain

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Recently, genicular nerve block and radiofrequency ablation were introduced to alleviate knee pain in patients with chronic knee osteoarthritis. Both ultrasound- and fluoroscopy-guided genicular nerve blocks have been used. However, whether one is superior to the other remains unknown.Objectives: The present study compares the efficacy of ultrasound- vs fluoroscopy-guided genicular nerve blocks.Study Design: This research used a prospective randomized comparison design.Setting: The study took place at a single pain clinic within a tertiary medical center in Seoul, Republic of Korea.Methods: From July 2015 to September 2017, a randomized controlled study was performed to analyze the difference in the efficacy of ultrasound- vs fluoroscopy-guided genicular nerve blocks. The Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), Global Perceived Effect Scales (GPES), and complications were evaluated pre-procedure, and 1 and 3 months after genicular nerve block.Results: A total of 80 patients were enrolled and randomly distributed to groups U (ultrasound-guided, n = 40) and F (fluoroscopy-guided, n = 40). Those who were lost to follow-up or had undergone other interventions were excluded, resulting in 31 and 30 patients in groups U and F, respectively. No differences in NRS-11 or WOMAC were observed between the 2 groups at baseline or during the follow-up period. GPES and complication rates were also similar between both groups.Limitations: We were unable to perform double-blind randomization and did not evaluate patientsu2019 baseline emotional states.Conclusions: Pain relief, functional improvement, and safety were similar between groups receiving ultrasound- and fluoroscopy-guided genicular nerve blocks. Therefore, either of the 2 imaging devices may be utilized during a genicular nerve block for chronic knee pain relief. However, considering radiation exposure, ultrasound guidance may be superior to fluoroscopic guidance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library)French-language works237,207