Trial reportEuropean radiology experimental2026
Comparing CT-guided and fluoroscopic-guided interventions for chronic low back pain management: a randomized trial.
Trial report in European radiology experimental, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLow back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability, with radicular symptoms often resistant to conservative treatments. While fluoroscopy and computed tomography (CT) play a pivotal role in procedural accuracy, direct comparisons of clinical outcomes remain limited. We compared the efficacy and safety of fluoroscopy-versus CT-guided interventions in the management of radicular LBP. MATERIALS AND
methodsAdults with chronic LBP were prospectively randomized 1:1 to receive either fluoroscopy-guided or CT-guided interventions. Assessments were conducted at baseline, one week, one month, three months, and six months, and included the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) for functionality. Operative time, radiation exposure, complication rates, and patient satisfaction were evaluated.
resultsTwo hundred participants (mean age 51.3 years) were enrolled. Baseline median VAS value was 6.0 in both groups. No significant differences in ODI were observed at any time point. However, VAS values favored fluoroscopy at one (p = 0.030), three (p = 0.041), and six months (p = 0.012). Both groups demonstrated within-group improvements (p < 0.001). Radiation exposure (median 352 versus 347.5 mGy; p = 0.970), operative time (median 22.5 versus 23 min; p = 0.317), complication rates (96‒99% no complications), and satisfaction levels (≥ 90% satisfied or very satisfied) were similar.
conclusionBoth fluoroscopy- and CT-guided interventions are safe and effective for managing radicular LBP. Fluoroscopy offers modest advantages in short-term pain relief, while CT provides enhanced anatomical visualization. The choice of imaging guidance should be individualized based on patient characteristics and resource availability. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Fluoroscopy- and CT-guided interventions offer safe, effective, and tailored treatment options for radicular LBP, supporting personalized, image-guided approaches. KEY POINTS: Both fluoroscopy-guided and CT-guided interventions significantly improve chronic radicular LBP, but fluoroscopy provides superior short-term pain relief. Fluoroscopy and CT interventions are equally safe, with comparable complication rates, radiation exposure, and procedure durations. Selection between fluoroscopy and CT should be based on individual patient needs, procedural goals, and available resources.
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.