ReviewCureus2026
Artificial Intelligence for Procedural Guidance of Spinal Epidural Steroid Injections: A Scoping Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spinal epidural steroid injections (SESI) are commonly used for radiating low back and cervical pain but remain limited by target imprecision, operator variability, and inconsistent outcomes. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been increasingly investigated as a tool to augment image interpretation, trajectory planning, and decision support in interventional procedures, prompting interest in its potential role in procedural guidance for SESI. This scoping review aimed to summarize the current evidence on the use of AI to support procedural guidance for SESI. A search was conducted across three databases, PubMed (National Library of Medicine (NLM)), Web of Science, and Embase, for English-language primary studies published between 2015 and 2025. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. The AI architectures included machine learning, deep learning, and neural network-based models. Evidence was clustered into three domains: pre-procedural planning (e.g., anatomic segmentation and trajectory optimization using CT or MRI), intraprocedural guidance (e.g., real-time needle localization or plane identification using ultrasound or robotic systems), and post-procedural outcome prediction (e.g., forecasting pain reduction following SESI based on imaging data). Most studies demonstrated improvements in trajectory planning, needle localization, segmentation efficiency, or predictive performance. Potential benefits included reduced puncture time, decreased radiation exposure, and improved patient selection. However, AI performance was model-dependent, with some systems showing higher error rates than others. Additional limitations included small datasets, heterogeneity in AI model design, and underrepresentation of patients with spinal pathology or elevated body mass index. Overall, AI shows promise for enhancing SESI procedural guidance, but larger, more standardized studies are needed before its routine clinical use.
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.