ArticleAnaesthesiology intensive therapy2025
Noninferiority of ultrasound-guided lumbar disc block versus fluoroscopy-controlled lumbar discography for diagnosis of discogenic low back pain.
Article in Anaesthesiology intensive therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEvaluation of ultrasound (US)-guided disc block used to diagnose discogenic pain, as described in case reports. The study aimed to ascertain the noninferiority of US-guided lumbar disc block to conventional discography in the diagnosis of discogenic low back pain (DLBP). MATERIAL AND
methodsThe reports of 418 patients undergoing lumbar fusion for DLBP were stratified into a US group receiving US-guided lumbar disc block and a control group receiving fluoroscopy (FL)-assistant discography via a propensity-score matched method in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary endpoint was the confirmatory rate defined as the rate of clinical success following surgery measured by a numerical pain rating scale score ≤ 2 and an Oswestry Disability Index score ≤ 15 at the 1-month follow-up point. Secondary outcomes included needle insertions until contrast given, procedure time, radiation dosages and adverse events.
resultsThe confirmatory rates for disc block and discography were 71.8% and 73.2% (difference = -1.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -9.9%, 7.2%,
conclusionsUS-guided lumbar disc block was not inferior to conventional discography as a diagnostic modality in the evaluation of DLBP being considered for surgery. Given that the sonographic method provided advantages in terms of facilitation of needle insertion, reduced procedure time, and attenuated radiation exposure, it might be an alternative option for surgery decision making.
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.