ArticleJournal of pain research2025
Durability of Supplemental Nucleus Pulposus Allograft in Patients with Lumbar Discogenic Pain.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Supplemental Nucleus Pulposus Allograft in Patients with Lumbar Discogenic Pain: Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes and Quality of Life in Medicare Beneficiaries.Clinical interventions in aging · 2025Trial
- Article
- Comparing Medicare Claims in Patients with Lumbar Discogenic Pain Managed Conservatively or with Intradiscal Nucleus Pulposus Allograft.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- A Primer on Anatomy, Biophysics, Pathology, Imaging and Treatment of the Intervertebral Disc and the Anterior Spinal Column: The Discogenic, Intervertebral, Spinal Column (DISC) ASPN Workgroup.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The objective of this study was to determine the degree of improvement in lumbar discogenic pain severity and associated back impairment in patients with chronic axial low back pain treated with intradiscally delivered allogeneic nucleus pulposus (NP) at up to two vertebral levels (L1-S1). Methods: Prospective, single-arm clinical study conducted at 6 sites in the US involving 28 participants with discogenic pain (mean age: 44 ± 13 yrs) and modified Pfirrmann grade 3-7 on magnetic resonance imaging. This report includes the final participant follow up at 24 months post procedure. Back pain severity was evaluated using an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) and back function using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) were set at ≥30% and ≥50% over baseline, respectively. The patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) threshold for pain severity was ≤3. Results: The average improvement in back pain severity from 7.1 ± 1.6 at baseline to 3.6 ± 2.9 at 24 months was 43% (p<0.001). Approximately 64% (14 of 22) of participants achieved both the MCID and SCB in back pain at 24 months, while nearly 55% (12 of 22) reported a 24-month back pain severity score of ≤3. The corresponding average decrease in ODI values was 53% (p<0.001) with 73% (16 of 22) of participants achieving the MCID. At baseline approximately 82% (23 of 28) of participants reported severe or crippled back impairment compared to 18% (4 of 22) at 24 months (p<0.001). There was no association between modified Pfirrmann grade, number of levels treated or Modic changes and any outcome (range: p=0.12 to 0.43). Conclusion: This study provides evidence of clinically significant pain relief and functional improvement through 24 months of follow up after a single allogeneic NP supplementation procedure in patients with lumbar discogenic pain.
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.