The Efficacy and Safety of Ultrasound-Guided Nerve Block in the Treatment of Cervical Spondylotic Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [Response to Letter]

We thank the reader for identifying this critical error.After re-examining the raw data from the primary studies (Liu 2020 and Kose 2024), we confirm the following.For the Physical Component Summary (PCS), Liu 2020 reported an increase of +5.75 in the intervention group and +1.88 in the control group (mean difference [MD] = +3.87),while Kose 2024 reported an MD of +1.41; the pooled MD was +3.50 (95% CI 1.26-5.75).For the Mental Component Summary (MCS), Liu 2020 showed an increase of +4.18 in the intervention group and +1.83 in the control group (MD = +2.35),whereas Kose 2024 reported +5.71 in the intervention group and +7.37 in the control group (MD = -1.66); the pooled MD was +2.22 (95% CI 0.79-3.64).All mean differences were calculated as intervention minus control; therefore, a positive value correctly indicates greater improvement in the ultrasound-guided group than in the control group.The confusion arose because the x-axis labels in Figures 7 and8 were reversed: "Favors [intervention]" was placed on the left and "Favors [control]" on the right, causing the positive MDs to appear on the control side.Accordingly, we have revised the relevant text on pages 11-12 to clearly state that the intervention group showed significantly greater improvement in both PCS and MCS scores.All data have been rechecked and no further errors were identified.We confirm that the total of 1072 patients represents the final analytic sample after excluding 10 patients who were lost to follow-up or excluded for other reasons; the manual summation of sample sizes in Table 1 is consistent with this final number.We thank the reader for noting the inconsistency regarding the number of dropouts.The dropout number in the table should have been reported as 5 (as described in the footnote), rather than 3, which was a typographical error during table preparation and will be corrected.Regarding the study by Wang 2020,

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Pain Research
Published
2026-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2147/jpr.s608993
Primary Topic
Cervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Efficacy and Safety of Ultrasound-Guided Nerve Block in the Treatment of Cervical Spondylotic Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [Response to Letter]

Ni Tang, Derui Wu, Mingyu Deng, Jiayi Kuang
Journal of Pain Research
Cervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
article

The Efficacy and Safety of Ultrasound-Guided Nerve Block in the Treatment of Cervical Spondylotic Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [Response to Letter]

Ni Tang, Derui Wu, Mingyu Deng, Jiayi Kuang
article en

Abstract

We thank the reader for identifying this critical error.After re-examining the raw data from the primary studies (Liu 2020 and Kose 2024), we confirm the following.For the Physical Component Summary (PCS), Liu 2020 reported an increase of +5.75 in the intervention group and +1.88 in the control group (mean difference [MD] = +3.87),while Kose 2024 reported an MD of +1.41; the pooled MD was +3.50 (95% CI 1.26-5.75).For the Mental Component Summary (MCS), Liu 2020 showed an increase of +4.18 in the intervention group and +1.83 in the control group (MD = +2.35),whereas Kose 2024 reported +5.71 in the intervention group and +7.37 in the control group (MD = -1.66); the pooled MD was +2.22 (95% CI 0.79-3.64).All mean differences were calculated as intervention minus control; therefore, a positive value correctly indicates greater improvement in the ultrasound-guided group than in the control group.The confusion arose because the x-axis labels in Figures 7 and8 were reversed: "Favors [intervention]" was placed on the left and "Favors [control]" on the right, causing the positive MDs to appear on the control side.Accordingly, we have revised the relevant text on pages 11-12 to clearly state that the intervention group showed significantly greater improvement in both PCS and MCS scores.All data have been rechecked and no further errors were identified.We confirm that the total of 1072 patients represents the final analytic sample after excluding 10 patients who were lost to follow-up or excluded for other reasons; the manual summation of sample sizes in Table 1 is consistent with this final number.We thank the reader for noting the inconsistency regarding the number of dropouts.The dropout number in the table should have been reported as 5 (as described in the footnote), rather than 3, which was a typographical error during table preparation and will be corrected.Regarding the study by Wang 2020,

Journal of Pain ResearchVol. Volume 19
Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine (CN), Guangxi University (CN), Guangxi University of Chinese Medicine (CN), 181st Hospital of Chinese People's Liberation Army (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 20%
Cervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.