ArticleInterventional pain medicine2025
The impact on fluoroscopic image review on perceived benefit, patient satisfaction, and short-term improvement following lumbosacral epidural steroid injections.
Article in Interventional pain medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05884684 (What is the Potential Impact of Reviewing Post-procedure Images With Patients Following Interventional Spine Procedures.), which is not on this 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.
What is the Potential Impact of Reviewing Post-procedure Images With Patients Following Interventional Spine Procedures.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Interventional spine and pain physicians rarely review fluoroscopic images with their patients following spine procedures. Despite high patient satisfaction with these procedures, there may be further steps to enhance the patient experience. Objectives: The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of physician's post-procedure fluoroscopic image review on perceived benefit, patient satisfaction, and short-term improvement. Methods: This single blinded prospective comparative study evaluated post-procedure questionnaires following non-sedation lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESIs). The control group received a scripted verbal explanation of the procedure results. The intervention group received a similar explanation that was enhanced with a review of the fluoroscopic procedure images. The perceived benefit was assessed by asking the participants to rate the degree of helpfulness of image review. A modified Press Ganey Satisfaction Questionnaire was used to assess patient satisfaction. Short-term improvement following the procedure was measured at two weeks with a Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). In the case of missing PGIC data, manual chart reviews were conducted to assess outcomes. Results: The control group (no image review) included 70 participants, while the intervention group (image reviewed) included 71. There were 95.8 % of the intervention group that rated their actual image review as helpful to very helpful, while 68.6 % of the control group felt that image review would have been helpful to very helpful. The intervention group also reported significantly higher confidence in their provider (p = 0.03). There was no significant difference between groups in other domains of patient satisfaction or short-term improvement following the spine procedure. Conclusion: Consistent with prior literature, all participants reported high satisfaction following a lumbosacral TFESI. This study demonstrated that a brief post-procedure image review was highly beneficial and improved confidence in the care providers, whereas the control group likely underestimated the potential helpfulness of receiving an image review. Further studies are required to explore the best use of post-procedure image review and the potential further impact on patient-centered care. Registered: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05884684.
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.