In this task, you are given a passage which has a question and the context. You have to generate an answer to the question based on the information present in the context.

Context: Data on combined coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and restrictive annuloplasty in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy are scarce, and the effect on reverse left ventricular (LV) remodeling is unknown.', '51 patients with ischemic LV dysfunction (LV ejection fraction 31+/-8%) and severe mitral regurgitation (grade 3 to 4+) underwent CABG and restrictive annuloplasty with stringent downsizing of the mitral annulus (by 2 sizes, Physio-ring, mean size 28+/-2). Serial transthoracic echocardiographic studies were performed (before surgery and within 3 months and 1.5 years after surgery) to assess mitral regurgitation, transmitral gradient, leaflet coaptation, and left atrial and LV reverse remodeling. Clinical follow-up (New York Heart Association [NYHA] class, survival, events) was assessed at 2-year follow-up. Early operative mortality was 5.6%; at 2-year follow-up, all patients were free of endocarditis and thromboembolism, and 1 needed re-operation for recurrent mitral regurgitation; 2-year survival was 84%. NYHA class improved from 3.4+/-0.8 to 1.3+/-0.4 (P<0.01), with all patients in class I/II. Intraoperative transesophageal echo showed minimal (grade 1+) mitral regurgitation in 8 patients and none in 43, without stenosis. Leaflet coaptation was 0.8+/-0.2 cm. These values remained unchanged; all patients had no or minimal (grade 1+) mitral regurgitation at 2-year follow-up. LV end-systolic and end-diastolic dimensions decreased from 51+/-10 to 43+/-12 mm (P<0.001) and from 64+/-8 to 58+/-11 mm (P<0.001). Left atrial dimension decreased from 53+/-8 to 47+/-7 mm (P<0.001).\Question: Does restrictive annuloplasty and coronary revascularization in ischemic mitral regurgitation result in reverse left ventricular remodeling?
Excellent results of combined restrictive annuloplasty and CABG were obtained. Residual mitral regurgitation was absent/minimal at 2-year follow-up, associated with a significant reduction in left atrial dimension and LV reverse remodeling.

Context: Provocative clinical tests are often performed in the diagnosis of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (UNE) although the evidence for the usefulness of these tests is limited. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic value of provocative clinical tests in the diagnosis of UNE in a relevant spectrum of patients and controls.', "A prospective cohort study was performed in consecutive patients clinically suspected of having UNE. All patients underwent a neurological examination and four commonly used provocative clinical tests (Tinel's test, flexion compression test, palpating for local ulnar nerve tenderness and nerve thickening). Subsequently, in all patients a reference standard test comprising electrophysiological studies and neurosonography was independently assessed.", "192 eligible patients completed the study protocol. UNE was diagnosed in 137 and an alternative diagnosis was made in 55 patients. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were as follows: Tinel's test 62%, 53%, 77% and 30%; flexion compression test 61%, 40%, 72% and 29%; palpating for nerve thickening 28%, 87%, 84% and 33%; and palpating for nerve tenderness 32%, 80%, 80% and 32%. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curves showed that the added value of one or more provocative tests over routine clinical examination is minimal.\Question: Is the diagnostic value of provocative clinical tests in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow marginal?
The diagnostic value of provocative clinical tests in UNE is poor.

Context: Headache is a common complaint for emergency visits. Common drugs used in relief of headache are opioids and their agonists and antagonists, ergot alkaloids, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Lack of appropriate medications or serious side effects of available drugs, motivated us to perform the study for evaluating the efficacy of intranasal lidocaine on different types of headache.', "A double-blind, randomized clinical trial (RCT) was performed among 90 adult patients with acute headache in Shahid Rahnemoon Emergency Center of Yazd city of Iran (45 patients in lidocaine group and 45 patients in placebo group). Patients with history of epilepsy, allergy to lidocaine, signs of skull base fracture, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) < 15, patients younger than 14 years and patients who had received any medication in previous 2 h were excluded. After checking vital signs and taking the demographic data, one puff of 10% lidocaine or normal saline (placebo) was sprayed into each nostril. Patients' headache severity measured by visual analog scale (VAS) before drug administration and at 1, 5, 15, and 30 min after intervention. Data were analyzed by Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 17 and statistical tests including t-test, repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), Fisher's exact test, and Mann-Whitney test were performed. Descriptive variables were expressed by mean ± standard deviation (SD) and quantitative variables reported by frequency and percentages. P-values less than 0.05 were considered significant.", '57.8% of patients were female. The mean age of patients was 35.32 years. According to sex and age, there was no significant difference between groups (P-values were 0.83 and 0.21; respectively). The mean base pain score was 6.97 in lidocaine group and 6.42 in placebo group which was not significantly different (P-value = 0.198). After intervention, the mean scores were significantly lower in lidocaine group than placebo group in all mentioned times (P-value < 0.001). The primary and secondary headaches had no significant difference in mean pain relief score in lidocaine group (P = 0.602).\Question: Do evaluation of efficacy of intra-nasal lidocaine for headache relief in patients refer to emergency department?

Intranasal lidocaine is an efficient method for pain reduction in patients with headache. Regarding easy administration and little side effects, we recommend this method in patients referred to emergency department (ED) with headache.