ArticleDer Radiologe2021
[CT-guided pain management of specific low back pain : Disc impairment vs. osseous degeneration].
Article in Der Radiologe, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBack pain is common and leads the patient to the radiologist both for diagnosis and in specific cases for therapy.
objectivesThe current study compares the pain-reducing effect of microinvasive computed tomography (CT)-guided pain therapy for specific back pain caused by herniated discs or spondylarthrosis. MATERIALS AND
methodsOver a period of 3.3 years, a total of 239 patients were included, in whom 686 CT-guided periradicular therapies (PRT) and 264 CT-guided facet joint therapies (FAC) were performed. In all patients, the pain score was determined using a visual analog pain scale (VAS) before the intervention, during the course of treatment and at the end of treatment. Finally, treatment success was correlated to the type of treatment performed and to the morphological changes present.
resultsBoth groups showed good improvement of pain under treatment (74% of the PRT patients and 60% of the FAC patients). Patients who underwent PRT showed an average improvement in pain score of 3.1, while those who underwent FAC showed an average improvement of 2.1. The efficacy of FAC was dependent on the degree of degenerative changes present. The more extensive the proven degeneration was in the treated segment, the more interventions were necessary for a good treatment response.
conclusionCT-guided PRT and CT-guided FAC both lead to a good reduction of pain symptoms. In comparison, PRT achieves significantly higher pain reduction than FAC.
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.