Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15106234›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

Prolotherapy injections for chronic low-back pain.

M J Yelland, C Mar, S Pirozzo, M L Schoene, P Vercoe

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Effect sizes of non-surgical treatments of non-specific low-back pain.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2007
    Pooled it
  3. Prolotherapy injections for chronic low-back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2007
    Pooled it
  4. The efficacy of prolotherapy for lateral epicondylosis: a pilot study.Clinical journal of sport medicine : official journal of the Canadian Academy of Sport Medicine · 2008
    Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

M J YellandSchool of Medicine, University of Queensland, Inala Health Centre General Practice, 64 Wirraway Pde, Inala, Queensland, Australia, 4077.
C Mar
S Pirozzo
M L Schoene
P Vercoe
Bond University · AUGriffith University · AUUniversity of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProlotherapy is an injection-based treatment for chronic low-back pain. Proponents of prolotherapy suggest that some back pain stems from weakened or damaged ligaments. Repeatedly injecting them with irritant solutions is believed to strengthen the ligaments and reduce pain and disability. Prolotherapy protocols usually include co-interventions to enhance the effectiveness of the injections.

objectivesTo determine the efficacy of prolotherapy injections in adults with chronic low-back pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (2004, issue 1), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Science Citation Index from their respective beginnings to January 2004, with no restrictions on language. We consulted content experts to ensure we had not missed any references. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing prolotherapy injections to control injections, either alone or in combination with other treatments, were included. Studies had to include measures of pain and disability before and after the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected the trials and assessed them for methodological quality. Treatment and control group protocols varied from study to study, making meta-analysis impossible. MAIN

resultsWe included four high quality studies with a total of 344 participants. All trials measured pain and disability levels at six months, three measured the proportion of participants reporting a greater than 50% reduction in pain or disability scores from baseline to six months.Two studies showed significant differences between the treatment and control groups for those reporting over 50% reduction in pain or disability. Their results could not be pooled. In one, co-interventions confounded interpretation of results; in the other, there was no significant difference in mean pain and disability scores between the groups. In the third study, there was little or no difference between groups in the number of individuals who reported over 50% improvement in pain and disability. The fourth study reporting only mean pain and disability scores showed no differences between groups. REVIEWERS'

conclusionsThere is conflicting evidence regarding the efficacy of prolotherapy injections in reducing pain and disability in patients with chronic low-back pain. Conclusions are confounded by clinical heterogeneity amongst studies and by the presence of co-interventions. There was no evidence that prolotherapy injections alone were more effective than control injections alone. However, in the presence of co-interventions, prolotherapy injections were more effective than control injections, more so when both injections and co-interventions were controlled concurrently.

Indexed as

Chronic DiseaseCombined Modality TherapyExercise TherapyGlucoseGlycerolHumansInjectionsIrritantsLidocaineLigamentsLow Back PainPhenolRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicGlucoseGlycerolIrritantsLidocainePhenol

Identifiers

PMID15106234
OpenAlexW4302620752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.