ReviewCureus2020
Systematic Review: Is Intradiscal Injection of Bone Marrow Concentrate for Lumbar Disc Degeneration Effective?
Review in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Image-Guided Minimally Invasive Treatment Options for Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease: A Practical Overview of Current Possibilities.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Injection of Bone Marrow Aspirate for Glenohumeral Joint Osteoarthritis: A Pilot Randomized Control Trial.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2021Article
- Preclinical Animal Study and Pilot Clinical Trial of Using Enriched Peripheral Blood-Derived Mononuclear Cells for Intervertebral Disc Degeneration.Cell transplantationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current studies evaluating the outcomes of an intradiscal injection of bone marrow concentrate (BMC) for lumbar disc degeneration are limited. The purpose of this review was to determine if an intradiscal injection of BMC for lumbar disc degeneration results in a statistically significant improvement in clinical outcomes. A systematic review was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Levels I-IV investigations of intradiscal BMC injections in symptomatic lumbar disc degeneration were included in the analysis. Modified Coleman Methodology Scores (MCMS) were used to analyze study methodological quality. Only outcome measurements used by more than 50% of included studies, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months, were eligible for final data analysis. Pre-injection and post-injection visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were compared using two-sample Z-tests. Seven articles (97 subjects (47 males, 38 females, 12 unspecified), mean age 33.9 ± 14.3 years, mean follow-up 44.4 ± 25.4 months) were analyzed. Six articles were level IV evidence and one article was level II. Mean MCMS was 56.6 ± 9.1. All subjects received single injections into the nucleus pulposus of one or more affected discs. VAS (66.0 mm to 20.9 mm; p<0.001) and ODI (44.4 to 19.1; p<0.001) significantly improved following the intradiscal BMC injection. One patient (1.0%) experienced herniated nucleus pulposus (HNP) following treatment. No other complications or re-injections were reported. In conclusion, despite our skepticism regarding the efficacy of the procedure, intradiscal injection of BMC for lumbar disc degeneration resulted in statistically significant improvement in VAS and ODI with low re-injection and complication rates in the studies assessed. Given that this study is limited to level IV evidence, the findings suggest that further randomized controlled studies may be worthwhile to evaluate the true efficacy of this treatment.
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.