ReviewInterventional pain medicine2025
The effectiveness of fluoroscopically guided lumbar facet steroid joint injections: A systematic review.
Review in Interventional pain medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Percutaneous therapy for back pain : Epidural and perifacet therapies].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Summary of background data: Facet joint degeneration is a known source of chronic axial low back pain, and intra-articular steroid injections (IASI) have been used as a treatment. Objectives: To systematically review the evidence of the effectiveness of fluoroscopically guided lumbar IASI for the treatment of lumbar facet joint pain. Methods: The primary outcome was ≥50 % pain reduction at ≥ 1 month, measured by Visual Analog Scale and/or Numeric Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes included ≥30 % functional improvement on a validated functional scale. Studies including group mean improvements in pain/function without categorical reporting were also considered. Two reviewers independently screened Embase, Cochrane, PubMed Medline, Ovid Medline, Web of Knowledge, and Google Scholar. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and evidence quality was evaluated using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: Of the 701 publications screened, 21 met the inclusion criteria. Success rates for clinically significant pain reduction (≥50 % pain relief) ranged from 13 to 74 %, and functional improvement (≥30 % improvement) was 29 % at ≥ 1 month, based on only one study. Overall, mean improvement ranged from 11 to 59 % for pain relief and 8-58 % for function at ≥ 1 month. In the seven studies selecting patients with facet or medial branch blocks, success rates for clinically significant pain reduction (≥50 % pain relief) are reported as 13-74 % at ≥ 1 month. In this subgroup, mean pain improvement rates ranged from 23 to 67 % and functional improvement from 15 to 58 % at ≥ 1 month. According to GRADE, the overall quality of the evidence is very low due to the high risk of bias, study heterogeneity, and inconsistent methodologies. Discussion/conclusion: Pragmatic and observational studies suggest IASI may reduce pain and disability, while sham-controlled trials have not demonstrated efficacy. Given the very low quality of evidence, the true effect of IASI is highly uncertain. Further high-quality, placebo-controlled studies using standardized diagnostic criteria are needed.
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.