ArticleHeliyon2022
Non-surgical therapy for the treatment of chronic low back pain in patients with Modic changes: A systematic review of the literature.
Article in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of a Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor in Chronic Low-Back Pain With Modic Type 1 Changes: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Trial
- Intradiscal linezolid (PP353) treatment for chronic low back pain associated with Modic change type 1: an international, first-in-human, randomised, sham procedure-controlled, double-blind, phase 1b clinical trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Modic changes as seen on MRI are associated with nonspecific chronic lower back pain and disability.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In absence of uniform therapeutic recommendations, knowledge of the available treatment options for Modic changes (MCs) patients and their safety and effectiveness would be crucial and significant for clinicians and such patients. Objectives: The aim of this study was to provide a systematic review of available studies on non-surgical treatments of MCs. Methods: We performed a systematic review of multiple electronic databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure for the period until 31st August 2021 to search for studies on non-surgical treatments for MCs in accordance with the guidance of the Cochrane Handbook. Potential studies were screened by their titles and abstracts. The methodological quality of the included studies was independently evaluated by two authors. Final recommendations for the included interventions were developed based on grades of recommendations. The narrative format was adopted to synthesize the findings of the present work. Results: Fifth studies involving a total of 1147 patients were identified for this systematic review. The results of this review demonstrated that spinal manipulation has been suggested as an alternative option for patients with MCs. However, there was insufficient evidence to support that patients with MCs can benefit from the medication and wearing the rigid lumbar brace. Moreover, the rationale and safety for the use of antibiotics in such patients remain highly controversial. Low evidence revealed that exercise therapy might decrease pain intensity only for special subgroups of MCs patients. Conclusions: There is not yet enough evidence to suggest that non-surgical treatments are useful for patients with MCs. Further high-quality, multicenter trials are required to validate the effectiveness of these non-surgical treatments.
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.