Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41759692›Full record

ReviewThe journal of pain2026

De-implementing spinal injections in pursuit of value-based care: Rethinking pain relief.

Lindsay A Ballengee, Trevor A Lentz, Christine Goertz, Frank McStay, Inga Morken, Steven Z George

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The journal of pain, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lindsay A BallengeeDuke University School of Medicine, Department of Population Health Sciences, 215 Morris Street, Durham, NC 27701, USA; Duke University School of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, 311 Trent Drive, Durham, NC 27710, USA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, 300 W. Morgan Street, Durham, NC 27701, USA. Electronic address: Lindsay.Ballengee@duke.edu.
Trevor A LentzDuke University School of Medicine, Department of Population Health Sciences, 215 Morris Street, Durham, NC 27701, USA; Duke University School of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, 311 Trent Drive, Durham, NC 27710, USA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, 300 W. Morgan Street, Durham, NC 27701, USA; Duke Margolis Institute for Health Policy, 230 Science Drive, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Christine GoertzDuke University School of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, 311 Trent Drive, Durham, NC 27710, USA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, 300 W. Morgan Street, Durham, NC 27701, USA; Duke Margolis Institute for Health Policy, 230 Science Drive, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Frank McStayDuke Margolis Institute for Health Policy, 230 Science Drive, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Inga MorkenDuke Margolis Institute for Health Policy, 230 Science Drive, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Steven Z GeorgeDuke University School of Medicine, Department of Population Health Sciences, 215 Morris Street, Durham, NC 27701, USA; Duke University School of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, 311 Trent Drive, Durham, NC 27710, USA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, 300 W. Morgan Street, Durham, NC 27701, USA.

Funding

AIM BACK UH3 TransitionUH3AT009790 · NCCIH · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI GEORGE, STEVEN Z, HASTINGS, SUSAN NICOLE · 2020 to 2023
$6.4M
NCCIH NIH HHS UH3 AT009790
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite guideline recommendations to the contrary, patients experiencing low back pain are commonly exposed to low-value care. Spinal injections for chronic low back pain are a key example of this disconnect. Their persistence highlights the broader challenge of removing low-value practices in pain care. Low-value interventions rarely fade with the introduction of new treatments; rather, their continued use reflects entrenched reimbursement incentives, provider training norms, and patient expectations. This Focus Article applies implementation science concepts to examine spinal injections as an obvious candidate for de-implementation away from existing practice patterns. Evidence of limited effectiveness and risks is summarized, alongside multilevel determinants that sustain ongoing use at the provider, patient, organizational, and system levels. A range of strategies is mapped to guide change and a four-step roadmap is presented to operationalize these concepts. Embedding de-implementation of spinal injections alongside implementation efforts for other pain management options reframes change as an intentional redesign of care delivery rather than a withdrawal of treatment. By redirecting resources away from ineffective procedures and toward evidence-based alternatives, de-implementation offers a proactive pathway to improve outcomes, enhance equity, reduce waste, and strengthen patient trust in pain management. PERSPECTIVE: This article applies an implementation science lens to spinal injections for chronic low back pain. By outlining barriers, strategies, and describing a practical roadmap, it reframes de-implementation as a proactive quality improvement approach that offers other viable treatment options while redirecting resources towards higher value treatment options for pain management.

Indexed as

Chronic PainImplementation ScienceInjections, SpinalLow Back PainPain ManagementHumansValue-Based Health CareChronic low back painDe-implementationEpidural steroid injectionsLow-value careValue-based care

Identifiers

PMID41759692
PMCPMC13068023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.