The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Efficacy of epidural steroid injections for low-back pain and sciatica: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials
Open accessAbstract
The purpose of the study was to assess the efficacy of epidural steroid injections for low-back pain. Data was obtained using computer-aided search of published randomized clinical trials and assessment of the methods of the studies. Twelve randomized clinical trials evaluating epidural steroid injections were identified. Data was extracted based on scores for quality of the methods, using 4 categories (study population, interventions, effect measurement, and data presentation and analysis) and the conclusion of the author(s) with regard to the efficacy of epidural steroid injections. Method scores of the trials ranged from 17 to 72 points (maximum 100 points). Eight trials showed method scores of 50 points or more. Of the 4 best studies (> 60 points), 2 reported positive outcomes and 2 reported negative results. Overall, 6 studies indicated that the epidural steroid injection was more effective than the reference treatment and 6 reported it to be no better or worse than the reference treatment. There appeared to be no relationship between the methodological quality of the trials and reported outcomes. In conclusion, there are flaws in the design of most studies. The best studies showed inconsistent results of epidural steroid injections. The efficacy of epidural steroid injections has not been established. The benefits of epidural steroid injections, if any, seem to be of short duration only. Future research efforts are warranted, but more attention should be paid to the methods of the trials.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for Its Occurrence
Dickersin, K. (1990) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440100097014 · Cited by 1,417 · cited 1×
“Publication bias can not be ruled out, so it is possible that trials were missed trials because they were not published due to their (negative) results (Dickersin 1990).”
BackgroundA method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial
Chalmers, T. C., Smith, H., Blackburn, B., Silverman, B., Schroeder, B., Reitman, D., & Ambroz, A. (1981) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(81)90056-8 · Cited by 1,349
Cited by
Chapter 4 European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain
Airaksinen, O., Brox, J. I., Cedraschi, C., Hildebrandt, J., Klaber-Moffett, J., Kovacs, F., Mannion, A. F., Reis, S., Staal, J. B., Ursin, H., et al. (2006) · European Spine Journal · doi:10.1007/s00586-006-1072-1 · Cited by 2,594
Epidural Steroids in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain: A Systematic Review
Abdi, S. (2007) · Pain Physician · doi:10.36076/ppj.2007/10/185 · Cited by 479
Chou, R., Atlas, S. J., Stanos, S. P., & Rosenquist, R. W. (2009) · Spine · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181a103b1 · Cited by 392
Ashburn, M. A., & Staats, P. S. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04088-x · Cited by 371
Spinal Manipulation for Low Back Pain: An Updated Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials
Koes, B. W., Assendelft, W. J. J., Van der Heijden, G. J. M. G., & Bouter, L. M. (1996) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-199612150-00013 · Cited by 277
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Koes, B. W., Scholten, R. J. P. M., Mens, J. M. A., & Bouter, L. M.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 1995-12
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 279-288
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1975373110
- Cited by
- 438
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 1.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficacy of epidural steroid injections for low-back pain and sciatica: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0304-3959(95)00124-7
- The paper
- Koes, B. W., Scholten, R. J. P. M., Mens, J. M. A., & Bouter, L. M. (1995). Efficacy of epidural steroid injections for low-back pain and sciatica: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(95)00124-7
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.