ReviewInterventional pain medicine2022
Systematic review of the effectiveness of caudal epidural steroid injections in the treatment of chronic low back or radicular pain.
Review in Interventional pain medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- No Efficacy of Dexamethasone Injections for Acute Sciatica: A Double-Blind Randomized Study Versus Saline.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2026Trial
- The association between patient- and procedure-related factors and patient-reported intraprocedural pain during fluoroscopically guided lumbar epidural injections: A real-world cohort study.Interventional pain medicine · 2026Article
- Caudal Epidural Steroid Injection in adults with Chronic Lower Backache: Comparison of Landmark-Guided Technique and Ultrasonography-Guided Technique.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Combined pulse radiofrequency and selective nerve root block for lumbar disc herniation-related neuropathic pain: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of epidural amniotic fluid injection for low back pain.Interventional pain medicine · 2025Article
- Multisociety response toInterventional pain medicine · 2025Article
- Understanding the Landscape of Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injections: A Review of Interlaminar, Transforaminal, and Caudal Approaches.Orthopedic reviews · 2025Article
- An evaluation of the effectiveness of platelet rich plasma epidural injections for low back pain suspected to be of disc origin - A pilot study with one-year follow-up.Interventional pain medicine · 2024Article
- Ultrasound-guided caudal epidural injection to treat symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective study.European journal of translational myology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of fluoroscopically- or ultrasound-guided caudal epidural steroid injections (ESIs) with or without catheter placement for the treatment of chronic low back (CLBP), radicular pain, and/or chronic post-surgical back pain (CPSBP). Design: Systematic review. Population: Adults ≥18 years with CLBP, radicular pain, or CPSBP ≥3 months. Intervention: Fluoroscopically- or ultrasound-guided caudal ESI with or without a catheter including epidural neuroplasty. Comparison: Sham, placebo procedure, active standard care treatment, or none. Outcomes: The primary outcome was the proportion of individuals with reduction of pain by ≥ 50%. Secondary outcomes included functional improvement, analgesic use, subsequent spinal surgery, healthcare utilization, and mean improvement in pain. Reported adverse events were also cataloged. Methods: Four reviewers independently assessed publications before January 2, 2022 in PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Scopus. Quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Results: Of 364 records screened, 23 publications met inclusion criteria. The success rates for the primary outcome could only be extrapolated from one study. Another study used a composite improvement scale that included pain and functional outcomes. The reported success rates in these two studies ranged from 40 to 58% at three months, 25%-67% at six months, and 58%-61% at one year. Data on secondary outcomes were limited; however, rates of functional improvement as measured by mean improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) ranged from 2% to 55%. Conclusion: There is moderate-quality evidence that caudal ESIs using an in-dwelling catheter for two days is an effective treatment for pain and dysfunction associated with disc herniation with radicular pain and for CPSBP at three, six, and 12 months. There is low-quality evidence supporting the effectiveness of other caudal ESI techniques for pain and dysfunction associated with central lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication, discogenic CLBP, and CLBP without disc herniation or radiculitis.
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.