MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407728131 · doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-079970

Commonly used interventional procedures for non-cancer chronic spine pain: a clinical practice guideline

2025· article· en· W4407728131 on OpenAlexaff
Jason W. Busse, Stéphane Genevay, Arnav Agarwal, Christopher J. Standaert, Kevin A. Carneiro, Jason Friedrich, Manuela Ferreira, H. Verbeke, Jens Ivar Brox, Hong Xiao, Jasmeer Singh Virdee, Janet Gunderson, Gary Foster, Conrad Heegsma, Caroline Samer, Matteo Coen, Gordon Guyatt, Xiaoqin Wang, Behnam Sadeghirad, Faheem Malam, Dena Zeraatkar, Per Olav Vandvik, Ting Zhou, Feng Xie, Reed Siemieniuk, Thomas Agoritsas

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineInterventional pain managementChronic painEpidural steroid injectionRadicular painPulsed radiofrequencyPhysical therapyClinical trialLow back painIntensive care medicineSurgeryAlternative medicineLumbarPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the comparative effectiveness and safety of commonly used interventional procedures (such as spinal injections and ablation procedures) for chronic axial and radicular spine pain that is not associated with cancer or inflammatory arthropathy? CURRENT PRACTICE: Chronic spine pain is a common, potentially disabling complaint, for which clinicians often administer interventional procedures. However, clinical practice guidelines provide inconsistent recommendations for their use. RECOMMENDATIONS: For people living with chronic axial spine pain (≥3 months), the guideline panel issued strong recommendations against: joint radiofrequency ablation with or without joint targeted injection of local anaesthetic plus steroid; epidural injection of local anaesthetic, steroids, or their combination; joint-targeted injection of local anaesthetic, steroids, or their combination; and intramuscular injection of local anaesthetic with or without steroids. For people living with chronic radicular spine pain (≥3 months), the guideline panel issued strong recommendations against: dorsal root ganglion radiofrequency with or without epidural injection of local anaesthetic or local anaesthetic plus steroids; and epidural injection of local anaesthetic, steroids, or their combination. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: An international guideline development panel including four people living with chronic spine pain, 10 clinicians with experience managing chronic spine pain, and eight methodologists, produced these recommendations in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation provided methodological support. The guideline panel applied an individual patient perspective when formulating recommendations. THE EVIDENCE: These recommendations are informed by a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials and a systematic review of observational studies, summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms of common interventional procedures for axial and radicular, chronic, non-cancer spine pain. Specifically, injection of local anaesthetic, steroids, or their combination into the cervical or lumbar facet joint or sacroiliac joint; epidural injections of local anaesthetic, steroids, or their combination; radiofrequency of dorsal root ganglion; radiofrequency denervation of cervical or lumbar facet joints or the sacroiliac joint; and paravertebral intramuscular injections of local anaesthetic, steroids, or their combination. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS: These recommendations apply to people living with chronic spine pain (≥3 months duration) that is not associated with cancer or inflammatory arthropathy and do not apply to the management of acute spine pain. Further research is warranted and may alter recommendations in the future: in particular, whether there are differences in treatment effects based on subtypes of chronic spine pain, establishing the effectiveness of interventional procedures currently supported by low or very low certainty evidence, and effects on poorly reported patient-important outcomes (such as opioid use, return to work, and sleep quality).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.422 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207