***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Background Placebo treatment can significantly influence subjective symptoms . However , it is widely believed that response to placebo requires concealment or deception . We tested whether open-label placebo ( non-deceptive and non-concealed administration ) is superior to a no-treatment control with matched patient-provider interactions in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome ( IBS ) . Methods Two-group , r and omized , controlled three week trial ( August 2009-April 2010 ) conducted at a single academic center , involving 80 primarily female ( 70 % ) patients , mean age 47±18 with IBS diagnosed by Rome III criteria and with a score ≥150 on the IBS Symptom Severity Scale ( IBS-SSS ) . Patients were r and omized to either open-label placebo pills presented as “ placebo pills made of an inert substance , like sugar pills , that have been shown in clinical studies to produce significant improvement in IBS symptoms through mind-body self-healing processes ” or no-treatment controls with the same quality of interaction with providers . The primary outcome was IBS Global Improvement Scale ( IBS-GIS ) . Secondary measures were IBS Symptom Severity Scale ( IBS-SSS ) , IBS Adequate Relief ( IBS-AR ) and IBS Quality of Life ( IBS-QoL ) . Findings Open-label placebo produced significantly higher mean ( ±SD ) global improvement scores ( IBS-GIS ) at both 11-day midpoint ( 5.2±1.0 vs. 4.0±1.1 , p<.001 ) and at 21-day endpoint ( 5.0±1.5 vs. 3.9±1.3 , p = .002 ) . Significant results were also observed at both time points for reduced symptom severity ( IBS-SSS , p = .008 and p = .03 ) and adequate relief ( IBS-AR , p = .02 and p = .03 ) ; and a trend favoring open-label placebo was observed for quality of life ( IBS-QoL ) at the 21-day endpoint ( p = .08 ) . Conclusion Placebos administered without deception may be an effective treatment for IBS . Further research is warranted in IBS , and perhaps other conditions , to eluci date whether physicians can benefit patients using placebos consistent with informed consent . Trial Registration Clinical Trials.gov Study Design . A r and omized , controlled , double-blind trial . Objective . To assess the effectiveness of fluoroscopically directed caudal epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain in patients with disc herniation and radiculitis with local anesthetic with or without steroids .  Summary of Background Data . The available literature on the effectiveness of epidural injections in managing chronic low back pain secondary to disc herniation is highly variable . Methods . One hundred twenty patients suffering with low back and lower extremity pain with disc herniation and radiculitis were r and omized to one of the two groups : group I received caudal epidural injections with an injection of local anesthetic , lidocaine 0.5 % , 10 mL ; group II patients received caudal epidural injections with 0.5 % lidocaine , 9 mL , mixed with 1 mL of steroid . The Numeric Rating Scale ( NRS ) , the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 ( ODI ) , employment status , and opioid intake were utilized with assessment at 3 , 6 , and 12 months posttreatment . Results . The percentage of patients with significant pain relief of 50 % or greater and /or improvement in functional status with 50 % or more reduction in ODI scores was seen in 70 % and 67 % in group I and 77 % and 75 % in group II with average procedures per year of 3.8 ± 1.4 in group I and 3.6 + 1.1 in group II . However , the relief with first and second procedures was significantly higher in the steroid group . The number of injections performed was also higher in local anesthetic group even though overall relief was without any significant difference among the groups . There was no difference among the patients receiving steroids . Conclusion . Caudal epidural injection with local anesthetic with or without steroids might be effective in patients with disc herniation or radiculitis . The present evidence illustrates potential superiority of steroids compared with local anesthetic at 1-year follow-up Objective : To determine the efficacy of epidural corticosteroid injections for sciatica . Methods : Three epidural injections ( two day intervals ) of 2 ml prednisolone acetate ( 50 mg ) or 2 ml isotonic saline were administered to patients with sciatica presumably due to a disk herniation lasting 15–180 days .  Self evaluation was the main judgment criterion at day 20 . Patients who recovered or showed marked improvement were considered as success . Pain measured by VAS , the SLR test , Schober ’s test , Dallas pain question naire , and the Rol and -Morris index were evaluated at days 0 , 5 , 20 , and 35 . Only analgesics were authorised , patients requiring non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs ( NSAIDs ) before day 20 were considered as failure . Results : 42 patients were included in the control group ( CG ) , 43 in the steroid group ( SG ) . On an intention to treat analysis 15/42 ( 36 % ) in the CG and 22/43 ( 51 % ) in the SG ( p=0.15 ) were considered as success ( difference 15.5 % , 95 % CI ( −5.4 to 36.3 ) ) . Among the 48 failures , 14 patients ( 6 CG , 8 SG ) required NSAIDs , 3 ( 2 CG , 1 SG ) required surgery , and 7 ( 3 CG , 4 SG ) other treatments . On analysis according to protocol , in 74 remaining patients 12/35 ( 34 % ) in the CG and 22/39 ( 56 % ) in the SG ( p=0.057 ) were considered as success ( difference 22.1 % , 95 % CI ( 0.0 to 44.2 ) ) . For all secondary end points intragroup improvement with time was significant , but intergroup differences were not . Conclusion : The efficacy of isotonic saline administered epidurally for sciatica can not be excluded , but epidural steroid injections provide no additional improvement CONTEXT Lumbar diskectomy is the most common surgical procedure performed for back and leg symptoms in US patients , but the efficacy of the procedure relative to nonoperative care remains controversial . OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy of surgery for lumbar intervertebral disk herniation . DESIGN , SETTING , AND PATIENTS The Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial , a r and omized clinical trial enrolling patients between March 2000 and November 2004 from 13 multidisciplinary spine clinics in 11 US states . Patients were 501 surgical c and i date s ( mean age , 42 years ; 42 % women ) with imaging-confirmed lumbar intervertebral disk herniation and persistent signs and symptoms of radiculopathy for at least 6 weeks . INTERVENTIONS St and ard open diskectomy vs nonoperative treatment individualized to the patient . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary outcomes were changes from baseline for the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey bodily pain and physical function scales and the modified Oswestry Disability Index ( American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons MODEMS version ) at 6 weeks , 3 months , 6 months , and 1 and 2 years from enrollment . Secondary outcomes included sciatica severity as measured by the Sciatica Bothersomeness Index , satisfaction with symptoms , self-reported improvement , and employment status . RESULTS Adherence to assigned treatment was limited : 50 % of patients assigned to surgery received surgery within 3 months of enrollment , while 30 % of those assigned to nonoperative treatment received surgery in the same period . Intent-to-treat analyses demonstrated substantial improvements for all primary and secondary outcomes in both treatment groups . Between-group differences in improvements were consistently in favor of surgery for all periods but were small and not statistically significant for the primary outcomes . CONCLUSIONS Patients in both the surgery and the nonoperative treatment groups improved substantially over a 2-year period . Because of the large numbers of patients who crossed over in both directions , conclusions about the superiority or equivalence of the treatments are not warranted based on the intent-to-treat analysis . TRIAL REGISTRATION clinical trials.gov Identifier : NCT00000410 Two controlled studies for a new epidural , perineural , singleshot , selective nerve root injection with a double-needle approach to the anterior epidural space of the lumbar spinal canal are presented . The results were analysed to determine the effectiveness of the new epidural perineural injection technique . The trial comprised two controlled studies on 182 patients . One study compared prospect ively r and omized results of patients with lumbar radicular syndromes who received epidural perineural injections  ( n = 47 ) , conventional posterior epidural injections ( n = 40 ) and , as a control group , paravertebral local anaesthetic ( n = 46 ) . A second , prospect i ve , double-blind study compared the effect of epidural perineural injections with triamcinolone ( n = 24 ) and pure saline ( n = 25 ) . Epidural perineural injections were more effective than conventional posterior epidural injections . Both epidural groups had better results than the paravertebral local injection group . Epidural perineural injections with steroids ( 10 mg triamcinolone ) were more effective than saline alone . A systemic steroid effect was excluded by additional intramuscular steroid injections in the saline group . There were no severe complications or side effects in any of the three groups . The studies concluded that single-shot epidural perineural injection is effective in the treatment of lumbar radicular pain . It is a “ one drop only ” therapy to the source of pain Study Design . We r and omized 200 patients after lumbar discectomy to receive  epidural steroid or none with a 2-year follow-up . Objective . To evaluate the outcome , neurologic impairment and safety of epidural steroid following lumbar discectomy for herniated disc disease . Summary of Background Data . Convalescence after discectomy for herniated disc disease is dependent on pain and the inflammatory response . Previous studies in arthroscopic and abdominal surgery demonstrate steroids , which reduce the inflammatory response and enhance recovery . Here we report a 2-year follow-up of a r and omized trial of epidural steroid following lumbar discectomy . Methods . Through 2001 and 2003 200 patients undergoing discectomy for herniated disc disease were r and omly allocated to receive epidural methylprednisolone 40 mg or none . In the control group ( 62 males and 38 females , median age 41 years , 18–66 ) 48 L5 , 50 L4 , and 6 L3 discectomies were performed and in the intervention group ( 60 males and 40 females , median age 45 years , 15–53 ) 56 L5 , 46 L4 , and 3 L3 discectomies . Contemporary with r and omization to epidural steroid or none both groups received preoperative prophylactic antibiotics and the same multimodal pain treatment . Results . Hospital stay was reduced from 8 to 6 days ( P = 0.0001 ) and the number of patients with neurologic signs were reduced more ( 70 % vs. 44 % , P = 0.0004 ) by epidural steroid . Incidence of reoperation at 1 year was 6 % in both groups and 8 % in the control group and 7 % in the intervention group after 2 years . No infections were registered . Conclusion . Epidural methylprednisolone enhances recovery after discectomy for herniated disc disease without apparent side effects The management of sciatica due to lumbar nerve root compromise remains controversial , probably because few well-controlled studies of conservative management have been performed . This preliminary study assesses the efficacy of epidural injections of 80 mg triamcinolone acetonide plus 0.5 % procaine hydrochloride in saline , administered via the caudal route , in a double-blind , placebo controlled trial with 1 year follow-up . Twenty-three patients were entered into the study : 12 received treatment and 11 placebo .  The active group showed significant pain relief ( P=0.02 ) and a significant increase in mobility ( P=0.01 ) at 4 weeks , which result ed in improved quality of life ( P=0.02 ) . At 1 year , subjective and objective measures improved in both groups . The improvement was greater in the actively treated group , but only the objective assessment ( straight leg raise ) was statistically significant BACKGROUND Chronic , persistent low back and lower extremity pain is often caused by spinal stenosis . Surgery and other interventions , including epidural injections , have been used to relieve this pain . However , there is little in the medical literature to support interlaminar , or transforaminal epidural injections under fluoroscopy for managing lumbar pain of central spinal stenosis , while the caudal epidural approach has been studied . STUDY DESIGN A r and omized , double-blind , active , control trial . SETTING A private , interventional pain management practice , specialty referral center in the United States . OBJECTIVE This study sought to determine if low back and lower extremity pain secondary to lumbar central stenosis can be managed and long-lasting pain relief can be achieved with interlaminar e 
    Output:
    
Results Based on strong evidence for short-term efficacy from multiple high- quality trials and moderate evidence for long-term efficacy from at least one high quality trial , we found that fluoroscopic caudal , lumbar interlaminar , and transforaminal epidural injections were efficacious at managing lumbar disc herniation in terms of pain relief and functional improvement .
Conclusions The available evidence suggests that epidural injections performed under fluoroscopy by trained physicians offer improvement in pain and function in well-selected patients with lumbar disc herniation