Trial reportScientific reports2026
Comparison of epidural space contrast flow and clinical outcomes in parasagittal versus transforaminal epidural steroid injection.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Epidural steroid injections (ESI) are frequently used to treat lumbosacral radicular pain, but the solute spread in the epidural space needs further investigation. This semi-blind, randomized study assessed clinical outcomes and contrast spread patterns between the parasagittal interlaminar (PIL) and transforaminal (TF) approaches in 79 adults with low back pain. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either TF-ESI (3 ml) or high-volume PIL-ESI (10 ml). All procedures were performed under fluoroscopic guidance. Contrast spread was evaluated by a blinded pain specialist, and clinical outcomes, including analgesia, patient satisfaction, and quality of life, were measured at two weeks, one month, two months, and six months post-treatment. Results showed no differences in baseline characteristics between groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in mean pain intensity at baseline and six months after treatment (p = 0.590 and 0.484, respectively). Pain relief, satisfaction, quality of life, and contrast spread to the anterior epidural space did not differ over six months. However, the TF group required significantly more fluoroscopic images (p < 0.001). High-volume PIL-ESI provides clinical efficacy and anterior contrast distribution equivalent to TF-ESI, with fewer fluoroscopic images 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.