ArticleJournal of pain research2023
A Pilot Study for Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacological versus Pharmacological Treatment Strategies for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2023. 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.
- Cost-utility analysis of acupotomy combined with epidural steroid injection for lumbosacral radiculopathy: analysis of randomized controlled trial.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2025Trial
- A cost-utility analysis of pharmacopuncture versus physiotherapy for chronic low back pain: A multicenter, pragmatic randomized controlled trial.Integrative medicine research · 2025Article
- Comparative Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacological and Pharmacological Treatments for Non-Acute Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Multicenter, Pragmatic, Randomized Controlled, Parallel-Grouped Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Non-Pharmacological and Pharmacological Treatments for Non-Acute Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Protocol for a Multicenter Pragmatic Trial.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of non-pharmacological- and pharmacological treatment strategies for Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) in pragmatic clinical settings. Patients and Methods: This study was a pilot, two-armed, parallel pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Thirty patients aged 19-70 years with a numeric rating scale (NRS) score ≥5 for sciatica and confirmed LDH on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were included. Participants were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to non-pharmacological (non-Phm) or pharmacological (Phm) treatment group. They were treated for 8 weeks and a total follow-up period was 26 weeks after randomization. Non-Phm treatment included acupuncture, spinal manual therapy, etc., Phm included medication, injection, nerve block, etc., The primary outcome was a numeric rating scale (NRS) of radiating leg pain. NRS for low back pain, Oswestry disability index, visual analog scale, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, patient global impression of change, Short Form-12 Health Survey, version 2, 5-level European Quality of Life-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) were also measured. Linear mixed model was used to evaluated the difference in change of outcomes from baseline between two groups. An economic evaluation was conducted using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups in the intervention period, but non-Phm group showed significantly greater degree of improvement in follow-up of Week 14. Difference in the NRS for sciatica and ODI were 1.65 (95% CI 0.59 to 2.71, p=0.003) and 8.67 (95% CI 1.37 to 15.98, p=0.21), respectively in Week 14. The quality-adjusted life year (QALY) value calculated by EQ-5D and Short Form-6 Dimension were 0.006 (95% CI -0.012 to 0.024, p=0.472) and 0.015 (95% CI -0.008 to 0.038, p=0.195) higher in non-Phm group than in Phm group. The cost was lower in non-Phm group than in Phm group (Difference: -682, 95% CI -3349 to 1699, p=0.563). Conclusion: We confirmed that the non-Phm treatment could be more cost-effective treatments than Phm treatments and feasibility of a large-scale of main study in future.
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.