ArticleJournal of medical ultrasonics (2001)2026
Ultrasound-guided cervical selective nerve root block with or without steroid.
Article in Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001), 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare short-term pain trajectories after ultrasound (US)-guided cervical selective nerve root block (SNRB) using a steroid-containing injectate versus a no-steroid injectate in patients with cervical radicular pain.
methodsThis single-center prospective comparative study used time-period-based allocation of injectate. Consecutive patients undergoing a first-time US-guided cervical SNRB between 2021 and 2024 were reviewed. The steroid group received 1% lidocaine 1 mL + normal saline 2 mL + betamethasone 4 mg (1 mL). The no-steroid group received 1% lidocaine 1 mL + normal saline 3 mL. Pain intensity was assessed using the numerical rating scale (NRS; 0-10) at baseline, 15 min, day 1, day 2, and day 14. The primary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with group, time, and group-by-time interaction; the primary estimand was the between-group difference in change from baseline to day 14. Secondary analyses estimated between-group differences at each post-baseline time point. Safety outcomes included procedure-related complications and 3-month clinical course.
resultsOf 97 screened patients, 70 were analyzed (steroid: n = 43, no-steroid: n = 27). Baseline NRS was similar (6.98 ± 2.38 vs 6.93 ± 2.29). The group-by-time interaction was significant (p = 0.0036). At day 14, the steroid group showed greater improvement than the no-steroid group (MMRM between-group difference in change: - 1.55; p = 0.0077). Model-based differences favored steroid from 15 min through day 14. No procedure-related complications occurred; six patients underwent surgery during 3-month follow-up.
conclusionIn US-guided cervical SNRB, adding betamethasone was associated with superior short-term pain improvement without observed complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42541641What 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.