Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36164681›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of medicine2022

An open-label non-inferiority randomized trail comparing the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound-guided selective cervical nerve root block and fluoroscopy-guided cervical transforaminal epidural block for cervical radiculopathy.

Xiaohong Cui, Di Zhang, Yongming Zhao, Yongsheng Song, Liangliang He, Jian Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Comparative efficacy of ultrasound guidance and fluoroscopy or computed tomography guidance in spinal nerve injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.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 · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Xiaohong CuiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Harbin Orthopedics Surgery Hospital, Harbin City, Heilongjiang Province, China.
Di ZhangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Harbin Orthopedics Surgery Hospital, Harbin City, Heilongjiang Province, China.
Yongming ZhaoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Nanchong Central Hospital, Nanchong City, Sichuan Province, China.
Yongsheng SongDepartment of Anesthesiology, Harbin Orthopedics Surgery Hospital, Harbin City, Heilongjiang Province, China.
Liangliang HeDepartment of Pain, Beijing Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Jian ZhangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Cancer Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin City, Heilongjiang Province, China.
Shenyang 242 Hospital · CNNanchong Central Hospital · CNThird Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University · CNXuan Wu Hospital of the Capital Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectTo compare therapeutic efficacy and safety of ultrasound (US)-guided selective nerve root block (SNRB) and fluoroscopy (FL)-guided transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) for cervical spine radiculopathy (CSR).

method156 patients with CSR randomly received US-guided SNRB verified by FL or FL-guided TFESI. We hypothesised that the accuracy rate of contrast dispersion into epidural or intervertebral foraminal space in the US group was not inferior to that in the FL group with a margin of clinical unimportance of -15%. Pain intensity assessed by Numeric Rating Scales (NRS) and functional disability estimated by neck disability index (NDI) were compared before treatment, at 1, 3 and 6 months after the intervention. Puncture time and complication frequencies were also reported.

results88.7% and 90.3% accuracy ratings were respectively achieved in the US and FL groups with a treatment difference of -1.6% (95%CI: -9.7%, 6.6%) revealing that the lower limit was above the non-inferiority margin. Both NRS and NDI scores illustrated improvements at 1, 3 and 6 months after intervention with no statistically significant differences between the two groups (all

conclusionCompared with the FL group, the US group provided a non-inferior accuracy rate of epidural/foraminal contrast pattern. For the treatment of CSR, the US technique provided similar pain relief and functional improvements while facilitating distinguishing critical vessels adjacent to the foramen and requiring a shorter procedure duration without exposure to radiation. Therefore, it was an attractive alternative to the conventional FL method.Key messagesWe conducted a prospective, open-label, randomised and non-inferiority clinical trial to estimate a hypothesis that the precisely accurate delivery through ultrasound (US)-guided cervical selective nerve root block (SNRB) was non-inferior to that using FL-guided transforaminal epidural steroid injection. Additionally, US-guided SNRB was as effective as FL-guided TFESI in the treatment effect on pain relief and function improvements. Notably, the US technique might be an alternative to the conventional FL method due to the ability to prevent inadvertent vascular puncture (VP) and intravascular injection (IVI) with a shorter administration time and absence of radiation exposure.

Indexed as

RadiculopathyFluoroscopyHumansInjections, EpiduralPainProspective StudiesSteroidsTreatment OutcomeUltrasonography, InterventionalSteroidscervical spine radiculopathyfluoroscopy-guidedSelective nerve root blocktransforaminal epidural steroid injectionultrasound-guided

Identifiers

PMID36164681
PMCPMC9553110
OpenAlexW4297256372

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.