Skip to main content
AJNR: American Journal of Neuroradiology logoLink to AJNR: American Journal of Neuroradiology
letter
. 2006 Mar;27(3):471.

Ozone Therapy and Lower Back Pain

AM Bertoli a, GS Alarcón a
PMCID: PMC7976952  PMID: 16551979

We read with interest Bonetti et al’s article “Intraforaminal O2–O3 Versus Periradicular Steroidal Infiltrations in Lower Back Pain: Randomized Controlled Study,” which appeared in the May issue of the AJNR.1 We came across this paper as we were searching for the possible beneficial effects of ozone therapy in fibromyalgia, which had been pointed out to us at a recent European meeting. The conclusions from this paper are that oxygen-ozone treatment is highly effective in relieving acute and chronic lower back pain and sciatica and that this treatment can be administered as a first option rather than epidural steroids. The authors support their conclusions with percentages and P values noted in the text as well as in the abstract, but not in the Table. In examining the actual data shown in the Table, we realized that the statistical analyses performed were flawed, given that the outcomes (excellent, good, or poor) are not independent observations. Therefore, the comparisons cannot be limited to those patients in one category with the exclusion of those in the others, but rather have to be performed with the entire data in a classic 2 (treatment type) by 3 (outcome type) format (2 df). The data would then read as noted in Tables 1 (for the intermediate outcomes) and 2 (for the long-term outcomes) that accompany this letter. None of the derived χ2 values shown in these tables reached 5.991, which would be the required value for a significance of 0.05. The conclusions reached in this paper are, therefore, not supported by the data presented.

Table 1:

Medium-term follow-up in patients with and without disk disease as a function of treatment type

Treatment Group Outcome
Excellent Good Poor Total
Patients with disk disease
    O2–O3 67 9 10 86
    Steroid 54 14 12 80
    Total 121 23 22 166 χ2 = 2.42
Patients without disk disease
    O2–O3 55 9 6 70
    Steroid 49 10 11 70
    Total 104 19 17 140 χ2 = 1.86

Table 2:

Long-term follow-up in patients with and without disk disease as a function of treatment type

Treatment Group Outcome
Excellent Good Poor Total
Patients with disk disease
    O2–O3 64 9 13 86
    Steroid 46 16 18 80
    Total 110 25 31 166 χ2 = 5.51
Patients without disk disease
    O2–O3 53 11 6 70
    Steroid 44 11 15 70
    Total 97 22 21 140 χ2 = 4.68

In light of the possible implications these data may have in supporting the role of ozone therapy for the treatment of back pain (and other painful musculoskeletal disorders), this clarification is essential.

References

  • 1.Bonetti M, Fontana A, Coticelli B, et al. Intraforaminal O2–O3 versus periradicular steroidal infiltrations in lower back pain: randomized controlled study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:996–1000 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2006 Mar;27(3):471.

Ozone Therapy and Lower Back Pain

M Bonetti b, M Leonardi b

Reply:

The point raised by our colleagues highlights a mistake arising from an error in transcribing the published table. The correct figures are listed in the table below:

Short-term Outcome with Steroids
Excellent Good Poor
With disk disease (n = 166) 64 (80%) 9 (11.25) 7 (8.75)
Without disk disease (n = 140) 55 (78.5%) 10 (14.3) 5 (7.2)

Moreover, the advantage of treatment with oxygen-ozone versus steroid clearly emerges in the long-term outcome of treated patients (for which the figures transcribed were accurate) between the 2 groups “with and without disk disease” reporting excellent and good outcomes compared with those with a relatively poor outcome: O2–O3 137 excellent and good versus 19 poor, whereas steroid yielded 117 excellent and good versus 33 poor. This difference is statistically significant (χ2 = 5.228, P < .025)—ie, O2–O3 treatment has a significantly better long-term outcome than steroids. When the single results are separated out (excellent, good, poor), the long-term effects of treatment are no longer statistically significant, but the higher success rate of O2–O3 treatment is still apparent despite the lower level of significance at the upper limits (disk disease χ2 = 5.502 against the 5.99 required for statistical significance; and likewise for no disk disease, χ2 = 4.692).

In conclusion, we regret the transcription error in the Table and apologize for this unwitting mistake. We are grateful to our colleagues for their attentive reading of our paper, which disclosed the error. We are certain that we have now clarified the true significance of our results in line with the overall findings of our paper.


Articles from AJNR: American Journal of Neuroradiology are provided here courtesy of American Society of Neuroradiology

RESOURCES