Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31168645›Full record

ArticleInternational orthopaedics2019

Fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural steroid injections for axial low back pain associated with central disc protrusions: a prospective outcome study.

James J Lee, Elizabeth T Nguyen, Julian R Harrison, Caitlin K Gribbin, Nicole R Hurwitz, Jennifer Cheng, Kwadwo Boachie-Adjei, Eric A Bogner, Peter J Moley, James F Wyss and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International orthopaedics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

James J LeeDepartment of Physiatry, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Elizabeth T NguyenDepartment of Physiatry, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Julian R HarrisonDepartment of Physiatry, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Caitlin K GribbinDepartment of Physiatry, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Nicole R HurwitzDepartment of Physiatry, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Jennifer ChengDepartment of Physiatry, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Kwadwo Boachie-AdjeiDepartment of Physiatry, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Eric A BognerDepartment of Radiology and Imaging, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Peter J MoleyDepartment of Physiatry, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
James F WyssDepartment of Physiatry, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Gregory E LutzDepartment of Physiatry, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA. LutzG@hss.edu.
Hospital for Special Surgery · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine if axial low back pain (LBP) associated with central disc protrusions can be improved by caudal epidural steroid injections (ESIs).

methodsAdults with chronic (> 3 months) moderate-to-severe axial LBP with L4-5 and/or L5-S1 central disc protrusions were enrolled in this prospective study. Participants underwent caudal ESIs under standard-of-care practice. The numerical rating scale (NRS) pain score, modified North American Spine Society satisfaction, and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) were collected at one week, one month, three months, six months, and one year post-injection. Pre-injection magnetic resonance images were assessed by a musculoskeletal radiologist.

resultsSixty-eight participants (42 males, 26 females) were analyzed. There were statistically significant improvements in all outcome measures at all follow-up time points, with the exception of NRS best pain at six months. Clinically significant improvements in outcomes were observed at various time points: at three months and one year for current pain; at one week, one month, three months, six months, and one year for worst pain; and at one month and one year for RMDQ. The proportion of satisfied participants ranged from 57 to 69% throughout the study. No adverse events were observed.

conclusionsThis study demonstrated significant improvements in pain and function following caudal ESIs in a cohort of axial LBP with associated central disc protrusions. Further studies, including the use of randomized controlled trials, are needed to determine the ideal subset of candidates for this treatment and to explore additional applications that caudal ESIs may have for chronic LBP.

Indexed as

AdultAnesthetics, LocalChronic PainFemaleFluoroscopyGlucocorticoidsHumansInjections, EpiduralIntervertebral Disc DisplacementLidocaineLow Back PainMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRadiography, InterventionalAnesthetics, LocalGlucocorticoidsLidocaineTriamcinoloneAxialCaudal epidural steroid injectionCentral disc protrusionLow back painOutcomes

Identifiers

PMID31168645
OpenAlexW2957045478

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.