Table 4.
The Distribution of the Pooled Number of Patients and Episodes That Had Significant and Non-Significant Reduction in Pain Scores Between the Various Domains of the PROMs, Anatomical Targets and Follow Up Periods
| Parameters | Domains | Total Studies | Total Episodes | Reduction in Pain Scores By Episodes Number | Total Patients | Reduction in Pain Scores By Patients Number (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sig. | Non-Sig. | Sig. | Non-Sig. | X2 (P-value) | |||||
| PROMs instrument | ODI | 12 | 23 | 7 | 16 | 703 | 328 (46.7%) | 375 (53.3%) | X2=78.08 (P<0.001) |
| VAS | 6 | 12 | 4 | 8 | 389 | 194 (49.9%) | 195 (50.1%) | ||
| NRS | 8 | 13 | 8 | 5 | 398 | 287 (72.1%) | 111 (27.9%) | ||
| SF-36 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 151 | 64 (42.4%) | 87 (57.6%) | ||
| Anatomical target of sham procedure | Disc | 6 | 23 | 2 | 21 | 542 | 60 (11.1%) | 482 (88.9%) | X2=910 (P=0) |
| Facet | 4 | 10 | 6 | 4 | 287 | 151 (52.6%) | 136 (47.4%) | ||
| BVN | 1 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 308 | 308 (100%) | 0 | ||
| RCN | 2 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 104 | 67 (64.4%) | 37 (35.6%) | ||
| SIJ | 3 | 9 | 2 | 7 | 160 | 47 (29.4%) | 113 (70.6%) | ||
| Caudal | 1 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 240 | 240 (100%) | 0 | ||
| Follow up period in months | Early | 8 | 14 | 7 | 7 | 337 | 177 (52.5%) | 160 (47.5%) | X2=16.2 (P<0.001) |
| Interm | 9 | 20 | 8 | 12 | 648 | 382 (59%) | 266 (41%) | ||
| Late | 9 | 21 | 6 | 15 | 656 | 314 (47.9%) | 342 (52.1%) | ||
Notes: Early, 0–2 months; intermediate, >2–4 months; late, >4–6 month.
Abbreviations: Sig, significant; RROMS, Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Interm, intermediate; BVN, basivertebral nerve; RCN, Ramus Communicans Nerve; SIJ, sacroiliac joint; X2, chi-squared; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; VAS, Visual Analog Scale; NRS, Numerical Rating Scale; SF-36, Short Form −36.