NEJM article

[epidural man]

We had a journal club about this article today. Dr Steven Cohen was on the line - it was fun to hear him talk about this article.

He made a point - that I think is key....he said to look at where the funding came from and who got the funding. As has been mentioned, the authors are strongly against interventions (a lot of them from Oregon). Before even reading this paper, once they got the funding...you KNEW exactly how the conclusion would come out.

So I tell you...if everyone knows how the article will turn out before the research is even performed....what does that say about the bias? It is very sad.

The article is clearly flawed on many levels. I'm surprised 101N doesn't recognize this. I am not saying that an ESI for spinal stenosis is good - but I"m saying this paper doesn't answer the question.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[epidural man]

Has ASIPP responded?

 

[Jcm800]

PM ME.

someone has hacked 101N.

this is not him

 

[oreosandsake]

I have been holding back asking my question since this online forum is not always so forgiving
so Please excuse my ignorance... aside from the comments and disagreement on methods, funding sources, and motivations of the authors, and other issues with methods etc

does this paper just say, "spinal stenosis is not a inflammatory condition?" But thankfully at least LA into the epidural space provided 3 weeks of relief?

 

[bedrock]

This paper "says" nothing, since the authors clearly have inherent bias. This paper changes nothing.

This study is useful only to line a birdcage.

 

[gasorrad]

Not sure if somebody already mentioned this but the two groups are not same. There is a big difference in the duration of pain with the steroid group having pain for longer period of time. After accounting for this difference steroid group was clearly superior