Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25789241›Full record

ReviewAnesthesiology and pain medicine2015

Efficacy of epidural injections in the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis: a systematic review.

Laxmaiah Manchikanti, Alan David Kaye, Kavita Manchikanti, Mark Boswell, Vidyasagar Pampati, Joshua Hirsch

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Anesthesiology and pain medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
14.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 118 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Laxmaiah ManchikantiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, USA ; Pain Management Center of Paducah, Paducah, USA.
Alan David KayeDepartment of Anesthesia, LSU Health Science Center, New Orleans, USA.
Kavita ManchikantiUniversity of Kentucky Medical School, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA.
Mark BoswellDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, USA.
Vidyasagar PampatiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, USA.
Joshua HirschMassachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
University of Louisville · USLouisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USPain Management Center of Paducah · USUniversity of Kentucky · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextLumbar central spinal stenosis is common and often results in chronic persistent pain and disability, which can lead to multiple interventions. After the failure of conservative treatment, either surgical or nonsurgical modalities such as epidural injections are contemplated in the management of lumbar spinal stenosis. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Recent randomized trials, systematic reviews and guidelines have reached varying conclusions about the efficacy of epidural injections in the management of central lumbar spinal stenosis. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy of all three anatomical epidural injection approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) in the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis. A systematic review was performed on randomized trials published from 1966 to July 2014 of all types of epidural injections used in the management of lumbar central spinal stenosis. Methodological quality assessment and grading of the evidence was performed.

resultsThe evidence in managing lumbar spinal stenosis is Level II for long-term improvement for caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections. For transforaminal epidural injections, the evidence is Level III for short-term improvement only. The interlaminar approach appears to be superior to the caudal approach and the caudal approach appears to be superior to the transforaminal one.

conclusionsThe available evidence suggests that epidural injections with local anesthetic alone or with local anesthetic with steroids offer short- and long-term relief of low back and lower extremity pain for patients with lumbar central spinal stenosis. However, the evidence is Level II for the long-term efficacy of caudal and interlaminar epidural injections, whereas it is Level III for short-term improvement only with transforaminal epidural injections.

Indexed as

Injectionslocal AnestheticPain

Identifiers

PMID25789241
PMCPMC4350165
OpenAlexW2171603490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.