Evaluation of Efficacy of Perineural Steroids and Local Anesthetics for Chronic Post-traumatic Neoropathic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trauma leading to entrapment or compression of nerves is an important cause of chronic refractory peripheral neuropathic pain (NP). The aim of this thesis was to evaluate benefits and adverse effects (AE) of administering steroids and local anesthetics around peripheral nerves subject to compression or trauma in patients with chronic peripheral NP. The first study, a systematic review and meta-analysis (SR-MA), showed a modest reduction in pain intensity based on numerical rating scale (NRS; 0-10) pain scores for patients receiving perineural steroids compared with those receiving LA or conventional medical management (CMM) (-0.69 points; 95% CI: -1.27 to -0.12; P = 0.02; I2=85%) at one to three months after the intervention. However, the quality of the studies was low. The second study was a retrospective, sequential, double cohort study in patients who sustained work-related injuries and developed trauma- or compression-related chronic peripheral NP of moderate-to-severe intensity in the ankle or the foot. In this study, the median NRS pain scores were lower in those treated by a combination of perineural local anaesthesia/steroids (LA-S) and CMM compared to those treated only with CMM [5.50(IQR 4.00-7.00) and 7.00(IQR 5.00-8.00) respectively; p
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".