Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38328752›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024

The effect of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion compared to sham operation: a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Engelke Marie Randers, Paul Gerdhem, Britt Stuge, Elias Diarbakerli, Lars Nordsletten, Stephan M Röhrl, Thomas Johan Kibsgård

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03507049 (Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Versus Sham Operation for Treatment of Sacroiliac Joint Pain. A Prosepctive Double Blinded Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial.), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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.

NCT03507049 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Versus Sham Operation for Treatment of Sacroiliac Joint Pain. A Prosepctive Double Blinded Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorOslo University HospitalRan2018 to 2030Enrolled63ConditionsSacroiliac Joint Somatic DysfunctionArmsiFuse, sham group, fMRI study
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors.

Engelke Marie RandersDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Norway.
Paul GerdhemDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Britt StugeDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Norway.
Elias DiarbakerliDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lars NordslettenDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Norway.
Stephan M RöhrlDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Norway.
Thomas Johan KibsgårdDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive fusion of the sacroiliac joint as treatment for low back pain may reduce pain and improve function compared to non-operative treatment, although clear evidence is lacking. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the effect of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion compared to sham surgery on sacroiliac joint pain reduction. Methods: In this double-blind randomized sham surgery-controlled trial patients with clinical diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain confirmed with sacroiliac joint injection were included at two university hospitals in Sweden and Norway. Patients were randomized by the operating surgeon at each site to minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion or sham surgery. The primary endpoint was group difference in sacroiliac joint pain on the operated side at six months postoperatively, measured by the Numeric Rating Scale (0-10). Un-blinding and primary analysis were performed when all patients had completed six months follow-up. The trial is closed for new participants and was registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03507049. Findings: Between September 1st, 2018 and October 22nd, 2021, 63 patients were randomized, 32 to the surgical group, 31 to the sham group. Mean age was 45 years (range 26-63) and 59 of 63 (94%) patients were female. The mean reduction in the operated sacroiliac joint from baseline to six months postoperative was 2.6 Numeric Rating Scale points in the surgical group and 1.7 points in the sham group (mean between groups difference -1.0 points; 95% CI, -2.2 to 0.3; p = 0.13). Interpretation: This double-blind randomized controlled trial could not prove that minimally invasive fusion of the sacroiliac joint was superior to sham surgery at six months postoperative. Funding: Sophies Minde Ortopedi supported a clinical research position for Engelke Marie Randers. Region Stockholm supported the cost for the Swedish ethical application and a clinical research appointment for Paul Gerdhem.

Indexed as

Orthopedic surgeryPlaceboSacroiliac joint fusionSacroiliac joint painSham surgery

Identifiers

PMID38328752
PMCPMC10847054

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.