Trial reportSpine2017
Patient Priority Weighting of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire Does Not Change Results of the Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injections for Spinal Stenosis Trial.
Trial report in Spine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-operative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication: an updated systematic review.BMJ open · 2022Pooled it
- Epidural Steroid Injections for Low Back Pain: A Narrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
designSecondary analysis of lumbar epidural steroid injections for spinal stenosis randomized controlled trial data.
objectiveTo reevaluate whether outcomes for older adults receiving epidural steroid injections with or without corticosteroid improve after using patient-prioritized Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) items. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Epidural corticosteroid injections are commonly used to treat lumbar spinal stenosis symptoms, despite limited evidence for their effectiveness in clinical trials. It is unclear whether evaluating patient-prioritized outcomes would alter results of a large clinical trial.
methodsOutcomes from the trial of lumbar epidural corticosteroid injections for spinal stenosis (LESS) trial were reanalyzed using RDQ, Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) weights assigned to the RDQ items, and patient-prioritized RDQ items. Differences between corticosteroid + lidocaine versus lidocaine-alone groups and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using analysis of covariance with adjustment for baseline values of the RDQ and recruitment site.
resultsAt 6 weeks, both the corticosteroid + lidocaine group and the lidocaine-alone group had improvement in the RDQ scores (RDQ, RDQ using SIP weights, patient-prioritized RDQ) as compared with baseline scores (corticosteroid + lidocaine: -4.2 points, -4.1 points, -4.2; lidocaine-alone: -3.1 points, -2.9 points, and -3.1 points, respectively). However, there was no significant between-group difference in the RDQ or patient-prioritized RDQ (average treatment effect -1.0 points, 95% CI -2.1 to 0.1, P = 0.07; -1.0 points, 95% CI -2.0 to 0.1, P = 0.08, respectively). Although the between-group difference of RDQ using SIP weights was statistically significant (average treatment effect -1.1, 95% CI -2.2 to -0.1, P = 0.04), this was not clinically important.
conclusionResults of the LESS trial did not substantively differ based on reanalysis of data using RDQ with SIP weights or patient-prioritized RDQ outcomes. This provides additional evidence that epidural injection of corticosteroid + lidocaine offered minimal or no short-term benefit as compared with epidural injection of lidocaine alone for older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.