Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37798592›Full record

SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2023

Comparative efficacy of ultrasound guidance and fluoroscopy or computed tomography guidance in spinal nerve injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ryota Kimura, Norio Yamamoto, Jun Watanabe, Yuichi Ono, Michio Hongo, Naohisa Miyakoshi

Erratum issuedAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in 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. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ryota KimuraDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1-1 Hondo, Akita, Akita, 010-8543, Japan. ryokimura24@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4855-3283
Norio YamamotoScientific Research WorkS Peer Support Group (SRWS-PSG), Osaka, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7902-9994
Jun WatanabeScientific Research WorkS Peer Support Group (SRWS-PSG), Osaka, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4477-4238
Yuichi OnoDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1-1 Hondo, Akita, Akita, 010-8543, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9250-457X
Michio HongoDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1-1 Hondo, Akita, Akita, 010-8543, Japan.
Naohisa MiyakoshiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1-1 Hondo, Akita, Akita, 010-8543, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5175-3350

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSpinal nerve injections have traditionally been performed under fluoroscopic (FL) and computed tomography (CT) guidance. Recently, ultrasound (US)-guided procedures have provided an alternative guidance approach that does not expose the patient and operator to radiation. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of US-guided spinal nerve injections compared with FL- or CT-guided spinal nerve injections.

methodsMEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, international clinical trials registry platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov database searches for inclusion until February 2023 were independently performed by two authors using predefined criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Primary outcomes were change in pain score (numeric rating scale or visual analogue scale) and major adverse events. Secondary outcomes were procedure time, change in functional disability score and minor adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effect model. We evaluated the certainty of evidence based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment and Development (GRADE) approach.

resultsEight RCTs involving 962 patients were included. There might be little to no difference in the mean score of the pain change between the US-guided methods and the FL- or CT-guided injections (standard mean difference -0.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.26 to 0.15). US guidance probably reduced major adverse events (0.7% [3/433] and 6.5% [28/433], respectively), reduced procedure time (mean difference -4.19 min; 95% CI -5.09 to -3.30), and probably reduced minor adverse events (2.1% [9/433] and 4.2% [18/433], respectively) compared with FL or CT guidance. There was probably little to no difference in the change in functional disability score with either method.

conclusionUS-guided spinal nerve injections remained effective and reduced adverse events compared with conventional FL- or CT-guided spinal nerve injections. Further RCTs are required to verify our results. STUDY REGISTRATION: Open Science Forum (Available from: https://osf.io/vt92w/ ).

Indexed as

PainSpinal NervesFluoroscopyHumansInjectionsTomographyComputed tomographyFluoroscopyMeta-analysisSpinal nerve injectionUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID37798592

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.