ReviewWorld neurosurgery: X2024
Acute back pain - Role of injection techniques and surgery: WFNS spine committee recommendations.
Review in World neurosurgery: X, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Lower back pain is a significant cause of morbidity, and despite a range of interventions available, there is a lack of consensus on the most efficacious treatments. The aim of this systematic review is to formulate a list of recommendations for the role of spinal injections and surgery in the treatment of acute back pain. Methods: A systematic literature search from 2012 to 2022 was conducted on Pubmed, Medline, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for papers focusing on the role of injections and surgery for the management of acute lower back pain. Inclusion criteria included randomised controlled trials, as well as prospective and retrospective studies reporting primary outcomes (pain improvement (VAS score) and back-specific functional status) and secondary outcomes (post-procedure complications). These data were reviewed, presented, and voted on by an expert panel consisting of 14 attending spine surgeons from 14 countries at the consensus meeting of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS) Spine Committee. A two-round consensus-based Delphi method was used to generate consensus, and topics with >66% agreement were categorized as having reached consensus. Results: 100 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 20 were selected by the committee for full text review and presented at the consensus meeting. The committee voted on 8 statements and achieved consensus on the following 7 statements: (1) Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) show significant benefit to discogenic back pain; (2) A lateral approach is superior to a midline approach for ESIs; (3) Short-term (<1 week) effect of ESIs is similar between steroids; (4) ESIs have a variety of potential complications; (5) CT or fluoroscopy guidance can be used for lumbar medial branch blocks; (6) Lumbar medial branch radiofrequency ablations can be performed on patients with recurrent pain after a successful ESI, and (7) Acute lower back pain is usually self-limiting, resolves in <6 weeks, and does not require surgical intervention. Conclusion: Given significant treatment heterogeneity, we provide the latest, evidence-based recommendations for management of acute lower back pain. ESIs are effective at short-term pain relief, and surgical intervention should be reserved for patients failing conservative measures.
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.