Common interventional procedures for chronic non-cancer spine pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To address the comparative effectiveness of common interventional procedures for chronic non-cancer (axial or radicular) spine pain. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Web of Science from inception to 24 January 2023. STUDY SELECTION: RCTs that enrolled patients with chronic non-cancer spine pain, randomised to receive a commonly used interventional procedure versus sham procedure, usual care, or another interventional procedure. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Of 132 eligible studies, 81 trials with 7977 patients that explored 13 interventional procedures or combinations of procedures were included in meta-analyses. All subsequent effects refer to comparisons with sham procedures. For chronic axial spine pain, the following probably provide little to no difference in pain relief (moderate certainty evidence): epidural injection of local anaesthetic (weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.28 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (95% CI -1.18 to 1.75)), epidural injection of local anaesthetic and steroids (WMD 0.20 (-1.11 to 1.51)), and joint-targeted steroid injection (WMD 0.83 (-0.26 to 1.93)). Intramuscular injection of local anaesthetic (WMD -0.53 (-1.97 to 0.92)), epidural steroid injection (WMD 0.39 (-0.94 to 1.71)), joint-targeted injection of local anaesthetic (WMD 0.63 (-0.57 to 1.83)), and joint-targeted injection of local anaesthetic with steroids (WMD 0.22 (-0.42 to 0.87)) may provide little to no difference in pain relief (low certainty evidence); intramuscular injection of local anaesthetic with steroids may increase pain (WMD 1.82 (-0.29 to 3.93)) (low certainty evidence). Evidence for joint radiofrequency ablation proved of very low certainty.For chronic radicular spine pain, epidural injection of local anaesthetic and steroids (WMD -0.49 (-1.54 to 0.55)) and radiofrequency of dorsal root ganglion (WMD 0.15 (-0.98 to 1.28)) probably provide little to no difference in pain relief (moderate certainty evidence). Epidural injection of local anaesthetic (WMD -0.26 (-1.37 to 0.84)) and epidural injection of steroids (WMD -0.56 (-1.30 to 0.17)) may result in little to no difference in pain relief (low certainty evidence). CONCLUSION: Our NMA of randomised trials provides low to moderate certainty evidence that, compared with sham procedures, commonly performed interventional procedures for axial or radicular chronic non-cancer spine pain may provide little to no pain relief. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42020170667).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.057 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.027 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".