Trial reportCJEM2024
The erector spinae plane block vs. usual care for treatment of mechanical back pain in the emergency department: a pilot study.
Trial report in CJEM, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05982483 (Erector Spinae Plane Block vs. Usual Care for ED Patients With Mechanical Back Pain), which is not on this 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.
Erector Spinae Plane Block vs. Usual Care for ED Patients With Mechanical Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB), traditionally utilized for thoracic regional pain control, has been reported as an effective analgesic option for mechanical back pain, renal colic, and rib fractures in the emergency department (ED). This pilot study aims to compare the effectiveness of the ESPB to usual analgesic treatment for patients presenting to the ED with mechanical back pain.
methodsA prospective, single-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted at a Canadian community hospital from March 2020 to December 2022. Adult patients presenting to the ED with mechanical back pain of at least 7 out of 10 on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) were randomized to receive either the ESPB or usual care. The primary outcome was the difference in NPRS score reduction at ED discharge. Secondary outcomes included ED length of stay, ED opiate use, follow-up NPRS and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) scores, back pain-related return ED visits, and ongoing opiate use.
resultsA total of 30 patients were enrolled, with 19 randomized to the ESPB cohort and 11 to the usual care cohort. The mean NPRS reduction at ED discharge was significantly higher in the ESPB group compared to the usual care group (5.4 vs. 2.2), with a difference of 3.2 (95% confidence interval 1.4-5.1). ED opiate use was lower in the ESPB group. The ESPB also resulted in a significant reduction in ED length of stay (160 min vs. 235 min). There were no reported adverse effects related to the research interventions.
conclusionThis pilot study suggests that the ESPB may be an effective opioid-sparing analgesic option for patients presenting to the ED with mechanical back pain. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT05982483.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39083200What 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.