Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 173

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparative Effectiveness of Cervical Transforaminal Injections with Particulate and Nonparticulate Corticosteroid Preparations for Cervical Radicular Pain

Dreyfuss, Paul, Baker, Ray, Bogduk, Nikolai·2006·Pain Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Cervical transforaminal epidural injections of corticosteroids have been used in the treatment of radicular pain. Particulate agents have been associated with rare adverse neurological outcomes. It is unknown whether nonparticulate preparations are any less effective than particulate preparations. Therefore, a study was designed to determine whether there is a basis for promoting a theoretically safer nonparticulate corticosteroid preparation. DESIGN: Volunteer patients were randomized to receive a single cervical transforaminal epidural injection with one of two corticosteroid preparations. SETTING: This study was undertaken in a private practice setting. PATIENTS: Those with single-level, unilateral radicular pain with advanced imaging demonstrating single-level neural compression. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received a single cervical transforaminal epidural injection with either dexamethasone or triamcinolone. OUTCOME MEASURES: Ratings were obtained by an independent unbiased assessor at 4 weeks via a telephone interview. A visual analog pain scale was used preprocedurally and a verbal integer scale was used at 4 weeks to assess the severity of the patient's radicular pain. As a secondary outcome measure, a patient-specified functional outcome measure was obtained. RESULTS: Both groups exhibited statistically and clinically significant improvements in pain at 4 weeks. Although the triamcinolone group exhibited a somewhat greater improvement, the difference between groups was not significantly different. CONCLUSION: The study found that the effectiveness of dexamethasone was slightly less than that of triamcinolone, but the difference was neither statistically nor clinically significant. A theoretically safer nonparticulant agent appears to be a valid alternative to particulate agents that have been used to date, and which have been associated with hazard.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2006.00162.x

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Metadata

Authors
Dreyfuss, P., Baker, R., & Bogduk, N.
Venue
Pain Medicine
Published
2006-05
Volume
7
Issue
3
Pages
237-242
ISSN
  • 1526-2375 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-4637
OpenAlex
W2021122597
Cited by
173
References
0
FWCI
6.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Comparative Effectiveness of Cervical Transforaminal Injections with Particulate and Nonparticulate Corticosteroid Preparations for Cervical Radicular Pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1526-4637.2006.00162.x
The paper
Dreyfuss, P., Baker, R., & Bogduk, N. (2006). Comparative Effectiveness of Cervical Transforaminal Injections with Particulate and Nonparticulate Corticosteroid Preparations for Cervical Radicular Pain. Pain Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4637.2006.00162.x

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.