Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41318933›Full record

GuidelinePain medicine (Malden, Mass.)2025

Consensus practice guidelines on sacroiliac joint complex pain from a multispecialty, international working group.

Zachary L McCormick, Robert W Hurley, Magdalena Anitescu, Arun Bhaskar, Anuj Bhatia, Ryan Carter Cassidy, Allen S Chen, Timothy C Dawson, Javier De Andrés Ares, José Luiz de Campos and 18 more

Abstract readPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

28 authors.

Zachary L McCormickDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, United States.
Robert W HurleyDepartments of Anesthesiology, Translational Neuroscience, and Public Health Sciences, and Pain Outcomes Lab, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6591-9390
Magdalena AnitescuDepartment of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States.
Arun BhaskarPain Management Centre, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Anuj BhatiaDepartment of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6292-8654
Ryan Carter CassidyUniversity of Kentucky College of Medicine/UK Healthcare, Lexington, KY, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7909-3219
Allen S ChenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4541-8112
Timothy C DawsonDepartment of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States.
Javier De Andrés AresDepartment of Anesthesiology, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4385-9056
José Luiz de CamposDepartment of Anesthesiology, Hospital Vera Cruz, Brazil.
Salim M HayekDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7936-017X
Berenice Carolina Hernández-PorrasAsociación Mexicana para el Estudio y Tratamiento del Dolor.
Narayan R KissoonDivision of Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6686-8537
Lynn R KohanDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0407-806X
María Francisca Elgueta Le BeuffeDepartament of Anesthesiology, Pontificia Universidad Catolicade Chile, Santiago, Chile.ORCID 0000-0001-5513-7408
Jee Youn MoonDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-5551-7750
David A ProvenzanoPain Diagnostic and Interventional Care, Sewickley, PA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2147-3523
David E ReeceDepartment of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Nathaniel M SchusterUC San Diego Center for Pain Management, Department of Anesthesiology, UC San Diego Health System, La Jolla, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4970-6296
Clark C SmithDepartment of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.
Alison StoutCenter for Spine Health, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Case Western Reserve Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, United States.ORCID 0009-0000-5651-6602
Karolina SzadekAnesthesiology and Pain Treatment, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Donna-Ann ThomasDepartment of Anesthesiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.
Nuj TontisirinDepartment of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-5938-8893
Michael F VaggDeakin University Medical School, VIC, Australia.
Jan Van ZundertDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency Medicine and Multidisciplinary Pain Center, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-5389-2036
Anna WoodburyEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta VA Healthcare System, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0644-6049
Steven P CohenDepartments of Anesthesiology, Neurology, Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Psychiatry, and Neurological Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5928-2127

Funding

Wake Forest IMPOWR Dissemination Education and Coordination Center (IDEA-CC)R24DA055306 · NIDA · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI ADAMS, MEREDITH C. B. · 2021 to 2023
$3.3M
Department of Defense Neu-92-13337Dept. of Health and Human Services Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health TDL 24-ICHUB-0001National Institute for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Disorders 1UH3135804National Institutes of Health HEAL Initiative and National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health R24DA055306National Institutes of Health National Institute for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Disorders 1UH3135804NIDA NIH HHS R24 DA055306NIH HHSNIH HHS R24DA055306
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe past two decades have witnessed tremendous growth in the appreciation and treatment of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) complex pain, including anatomical dissections that shed light on innervation, an appreciation for the contribution of extra-articular components to SIJ complex pain, the advent of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and a host of minimally invasive surgical techniques. Yet, there is no standardization on diagnosis and treatment paradigms.

methodsIn February 2023, the Boards of Directors for the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) and American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine (ASRA-PM) approved the development of multispecialty guidelines on SIJ complex pain. Thirty partner organizations with clinical and scientific interests in SIJ complex pain were identified, and formal letters of request-for-participation were sent to each, along with a request for nominees to serve on the committee. Twenty five organizations agreed to participate in addition to the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. A steering committee developed 21 questions, which spanned criteria for diagnosis, non-interventional and interventional treatments including surgery, technical parameters on how to optimize results, and what constitutes positive outcomes. Questions were methodically assigned to specialized modules comprising 4-5 members with complementary expertise, who collaborated with the Subcommittee Lead and one of three Committee Chairs to develop preliminary drafts. Following thorough revisions, these drafts were subsequently submitted to the full committee for comprehensive review. A modified Delphi method was used in which the answers to questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was achieved. During a committee meeting before commencement, it was agreed that recommendations would be noted when there was >50% agreement among committee members, but that a formal recommendation would require ≥75% consensus.

resultsTwenty-one organizations formally endorsed the guidelines. The American Society of Anesthesiologists, and American Academy of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, and the North American Spine Society affirmed the benefit of the guidelines but did not officially endorse them. The American Academy of Neurology declined to affirm the benefit of the guidelines citing "lack of relevance to their membership." Per policies, while the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs did not formally review the guidelines for endorsement, their representatives approved them. In addition to being endorsed or the benefit affirmed by all voting organizations, complete consensus from committee members was obtained on all 21 questions. On 2 recommendations, there were dissensions from 3 societies who thought that selecting patients for sacral lateral branch RFA and minimally invasive fusion should be based on ≥75% relief from 2 blocks instead of at least 50% relief from a single block before RFA, and greater than 50% pain relief with documented functional improvement after a single block before fusion. One additional society (Latin American Society of Regional Anesthesia) abstained on the statement that the evidence is stronger for extra-articular than intra-articular injections. The committee found that a battery of physical exam tests has reasonable sensitivity, but lower specificity, for identifying intra-articular but not extra-articular pathology, with negative tests having greater predictive value than positive ones. Intra-articular injections have diagnostic validity for SIJ intra-articular, but not extra-articular pain. There is unclear or negative evidence for imaging. The prevalence rates of intra-articular and extra-articular pathology are comparable, with both intra- and extra-articular steroid injections providing at least 4 weeks of relief in well-selected patients. However, the evidence is slightly stronger for extra-articular corticosteroid injections to provide short-term relief. The evidence base for non-interventional therapies is indirect, extrapolated mostly from low back pain studies. There is weak evidence supporting dextrose-based prolotherapy and platelet-rich plasma to provide at least 3 months of pain relief. There is strong evidence for sacral lateral branch RFA to provide relief for at least 6 months in individuals with extra-articular pathology, with face validity and indirect evidence from randomized trials supporting sacral lateral branch blocks as a prognostic tool. There is stronger evidence for larger lesions or more aggressive lesioning strategies than for less stringent techniques. There is weak evidence to support non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to prevent neuritis after RFA, and in most cases anticoagulation does not require cessation in the periprocedural perioid. With an aggressive lesioning strategy, sensory stimulation provides minimal therapeutic benefit, with weak, extrapolated evidence that motor stimulation can provide safety benefit. The cutoff to designate diagnostic or prognostic blocks as positive is most commonly set at 50%, with higher values not shown to improve outcomes for more definitive procedures; for therapeutic treatment outcomes, the evidence supports a lower threshold of ≥30% pain relief or meaningful benefit on non-pain outcomes (eg, opioid cessation) for designation of a positive response. For carefully selected patients with intra-articular SIJ complex pain based on controlled blocks who have failed conservative therapies, there is weak or very weak evidence that minimally invasive SIJ fusion can provide benefit for at least one year.

conclusionsSIJ complex pain remains an underappreciated source of chronic low back pain, affecting between 15% and 30% of patients with axial pain predominantly below L5. Answers to many questions were limited by low-quality evidence, indicating the need for better research. SIJ complex pain is a multifarious condition (ie, pain can be from different portions of both the intra- and extra-articular components of the joint) for which an interdisciplinary, multimodal treatment plan can optimize treatment outcomes.

Indexed as

ArthralgiaPain ManagementSacroiliac JointConsensusHumanscorticosteroid injectionextra-articularlateral branchminimally-invasive fusionprovocative testradiofrequencysacroiliac joint

Identifiers

PMID41318933
PMCPMC12681192

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.