ReviewIndian journal of orthopaedics2024
Injective Treatments for Sacroiliac Joint Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Management of sacroiliac joint pain: current concepts.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Sacroiliac Joint Injections of Platelet-Rich Plasma (Prp) and Stem Cells.Current pain and headache reports · 2025Pooled it
- CT-guided sacroiliac joint injection for chronic sacroiliitis: outcomes and predictors in a retrospective cohort study.La Radiologia medica · 2026Article
- Recognizing Sacral Insufficiency Fractures Hidden in Plain Sight: An Illustrative Case Report.Cureus · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The most effective injective treatment approach for sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain remains unclear. Aim of this study was to quantify the safety and effectiveness of the available injective strategies to address SIJ pain. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases from inception until January 2023. Inclusion criteria were studies written in English, comparative and non-comparative studies regardless of the minimum follow-up, and case series on SIJ injections. Safety and efficacy of the different injection therapies for the SIJ were quantified. A meta-analysis was conducted on the available data of the documented injective therapies. The "Checklist for Measuring Quality" by Downs and Black was used to assess the risk of bias and the quality of papers. Results: The literature search retrieved 43 papers (2431 patients): 16 retrospective case series, 2 retrospective comparative studies, 17 prospective case series, 3 prospective comparative studies, and 5 randomized controlled trials. Of the selected studies, 63% examined the effect of steroid injections, 16% of PRP injections, while 21% reported other heterogeneous treatments. The failure rate was 26% in steroid injections and 14% in PRP injections. The meta-analysis showed a statistically significant reduction in pain with the VAS score for both steroids and PRP: steroids improvement at mid-term 3.4 points ( Conclusions: Steroids are the most documented injective approach, with studies showing an overall safety and effectiveness. Still, the high number of failures underlined by some studies suggest the need for alternative procedures. Early PRP data showed promise, but the limitations of the current literature do not allow to clearly define the most suitable injective approach, and further studies are needed to identify the best injective treatment for SIJ patients.
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.