ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2021
Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Fluoroscopy and Ultrasound for Iliopsoas Block: A Randomised Trial.
Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The pros and cons of ultrasound-guided procedures in pain medicine.The Korean journal of pain · 2024Review
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
objectiveTo compare analgesic efficacy, improvement in the quality of life, psychology and learning curve for iliopsoas (IP) injection using ultrasound (US) versus fluoroscopy (FL).
methodsThirty-six patients with chronic low back pain secondary to IP myofascial pain were randomly allocated into two groups and were given IP injection in prone position, using either FL or US as a guide. Pain scores were assessed using numerical rating scale (NRS); learning curve was evaluated by the number of attempts, time taken and subjective ease of performing the procedure. The psychological and quality of life assessment were done using Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), respectively.
resultsFL and US guided IP injection had equianalgesic efficacy with a decrease in preprocedure NRS pain scores from mean value of 7.06 6 0.24 and 6.78 6 0.24, respectively, to 2.22 6 0.29 and 1.78 6 0.26 (at 24 hours), 1.50 6 0.22 and 1.50 6 0.23 (1 week), 0.50 6 0.12 and 0.56 6 0.15 (4 weeks) and 0.33 6 0.11 and 0.44 6 0.15 (12 weeks) (P < .001). The learning curve was easier for US intervention with average attempts of 1-2 compared to 1-3 for FL. The average time taken to perform IP intervention was lesser for US group. The improvement in DASS and ODI was comparable in both groups.
conclusionFL and US both are effective modalities for IP muscle injection as they provide equal relief from pain, disability and psychological stress. US guided IP injections are easier to learn and perform in comparison with FL.
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.