Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34694204›Full record

ArticleActa orthopaedica2022

The effect of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion compared with sham operation: study protocol of a prospective double-blinded multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Engelke Marie Randers, Paul Gerdhem, Jon Dahl, Britt Stuge, Thomas Johan Kibsgård

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Utility of minimally invasive percutaneous arthrodesis of the sacroiliac joint for the treatment of low back pain: systematic review of the literature.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Engelke Marie RandersDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Institute of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. maeran@ous-hf.no.
Paul GerdhemReconstructive Orthopaedics, Karolinska University Hospital, Department of Clinical Sciences, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. paul.gerdhem@sll.se.
Jon DahlDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. jodah@ous-hf.no.
Britt StugeDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. britt.stuge@medisin.uio.no.
Thomas Johan KibsgårdDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Institute of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. uxkibt@ous-hf.no.
Oslo University Hospital · NOKarolinska Institutet · SEUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose - The sacroiliac joint is increasingly recognized as a cause of pain in 15-30% of patients with low back pain. Nonoperative management is not always successful and surgical treatment with fusion of the joint is increasingly recommended. According to the literature, minimally invasive fusion reduces pain and improves function compared with nonoperative treatment. It is, however, unclear to what extent the placebo effect influences these results. Patients and methods - The trial is designed as a prospective multi-center, double-blind, randomized shamsurgery controlled trial with 2 parallel groups. 60 patients with a suspected diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain confirmed with sacroiliac joint injection are included according to the trial inclusion criteria. Patients are randomized with a 1:1 allocation into 2 groups of 30 patients each. The primary end-point is group difference in sacroiliac joint pain intensity on the operated side at 6 months postoperatively, measured by the Numeric Rating Scale. The main objective is to examine whether there is a difference in pain reduction between patients treated with a minimally invasive fusion of the sacroiliac joint compared with patients undergoing a sham operation. Results - Unblinding occurs after the completed 6-month follow-up. The primary analysis will be performed when all patients have completed 6 months' follow-up. Follow-ups are continued to at least 2 years postoperatively. Data from the different groups will be compared based on the "intention to treat" principle.

Indexed as

ArthrodesisDouble-Blind MethodHumansMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresMulticenter Studies as TopicPain MeasurementPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSacroiliac Joint

Identifiers

PMID34694204
PMCPMC8815456
OpenAlexW3209212578

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.