Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39238877›Full record

ReviewInterventional pain medicine2022

Systematic review of the effectiveness of caudal epidural steroid injections in the treatment of chronic low back or radicular pain.

Ameet S Nagpal, To-Nhu Vu, Benjamin Gill, Aaron Conger, Zachary L McCormick, Belinda Duszynski, Brian T Boies

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Multisociety response toInterventional pain medicine · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Ameet S NagpalDepartment of Orthopaedics & Physical Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
To-Nhu VuDepartment of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA.
Benjamin GillDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA.
Aaron CongerDepartment of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Zachary L McCormickDepartment of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Belinda DuszynskiSpine Intervention Society, Hinsdale, IL, USA.
Brian T BoiesDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AnalgesicsCatheterCaudalChronic post-surgical back painCorticosteroidsIndwellingLow back painLumbar spinal stenosisRadiculopathySteroids

Identifiers

PMID39238877
PMCPMC11373049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.