Observational studyTurkish journal of medical sciences2023
Effectiveness of ultrasonography-guided caudal epidural steroid injection compared to the fluoroscopic application.
Observational study in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of hybrid ultrasound/fluoroscopy guidance vs only fluoroscopy guidance on procedure time and radiation exposure in caudal epidural steroid injections.Interventional pain medicine · 2025Article
- Increased Risk of Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures Following Epidural Steroid Injections in Patients with Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCaudal epidural steroid injection (CESI) has been increasingly used for treating lower back pain. However, there is still significant controversy about the efficacy and safety of different imaging techniques used to guide CESI. In this context, the objective of this study is to compare the efficacies of fluoroscopy- and ultrasonography-guided CESI in patients with chronic lower back pain.
methodsThe population of this retrospective, observational study consisted of all consecutive patients who underwent CESI for lower back pain between 2018 and 2020. Of the 371 patients included in the study sample, 192 had undergone fluoroscopyguided CESI (Group F) and 179 ultrasonography-guided CESI (Group U). Patients' pain and functional statuses were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) immediately before (baseline) and after the procedure (postintervention day 0-D0), during the second week (D15), the first month (D30), and the third month (D90) after the procedure.
resultsThe mean age of Group F was significantly higher than that of Group U (p < 0.001). The number of patients with lumbar dischernia was significantly higher in Group U, whereas the number of patients with spinal stenosis and lumbar disc hernia + spinal/lumbar stenosis was significantly higher in Group F (p = 0.001). The baseline and D0 ODI scores were significantly lower in Group U than in Group F (p = 0.006 and p = 0.017, respectively). There was no significant difference between the groups in other VAS and ODI scores (p > 0.05). Intragroup analyses revealed significant reductions in VAS and ODI scores over the follow-up period till D30 compared to the baseline scores in each group (p < 0.001). The decrease recorded in the ODI score between the D15 and baseline measurements was significantly higher in Group F than in Group U (p = 0.006). DISCUSSION: The study findings indicated that ultrasound-guided CESI was as effective as fluoroscopy-guided CESI in treating chroniclower back pain.
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.