Skip to content

Clinical trials landscape

TL;DR — The registered landscape is fragmented across rehabilitation, intradiscal products, basivertebral ablation, implants and fusion adjuncts; entry criteria rarely define DDD the same way. As of 2026-08-30, live ClinicalTrials.gov v2 queries identified recruiting studies of ethanol gel versus steroid (NCT03415828), umbilical-cord MSCs (NCT04104412), hydrogel augmentation (NCT06011551), autologous marrow MSCs (NCT05066334), platelet products (NCT05287867), disc-cell products (NCT07168603; NCT07254806), low-pulsed ultrasound (NCT06611397), nucleus-pulposus allograft (NCT06778447) and basivertebral ablation cohorts (NCT07392333; NCT07433634). Completed randomized evidence supports selected basivertebral ablation and some cell/device approaches, but registry status, publication and clinical adoption are different states (Fischgrund 2018, PMID 29423885; Gornet 2024, PMID 38925869). Cross-trial synthesis is limited by phenotype, product, comparator and outcome heterogeneity.

Registry method

ClinicalTrials.gov API v2 was queried live on 2026-08-30 for “Degenerative Disc Disease” and for “intervertebral disc degeneration OR discogenic low back pain OR vertebrogenic low back pain.” The tables below report the registry status returned in that session; status may change. Broad searches returned hundreds of incidental cervical, perioperative and implant records, so the landscape below retains trials whose population or intervention directly tests lumbar disc, endplate or disc-attributed pain biology.

Status meaning Interpretation
Recruiting Site recruitment reported open
Active, not recruiting Follow-up/intervention ongoing, enrollment closed
Completed Study ended; results may still be unpublished
Terminated Ended early after enrollment began
Withdrawn Ended before enrollment
Suspended Temporarily halted
Unknown Status not recently verified by sponsor

Registration does not verify efficacy, regulatory authorization or data quality.

Recruiting interventional trials

NCT Intervention Registered design/phase Evidence question
NCT03415828 Ethanol gel vs prednisolone Randomized; not applicable Chemical intradiscal treatment
NCT04104412 Human umbilical-cord MSC Phase 1 Safety/early efficacy for discogenic pain
NCT05066334 Autologous BM-MSC vs sham Phase 2 Multilevel lumbar degeneration and chronic pain
NCT05287867 PRP/platelet lysate/platelet-poor plasma vs sham Not applicable Platelet-product efficacy in painful DDD
NCT04641039 Annulus removal/replacement at prosthesis insertion Not applicable Mobility and postoperative scar
NCT06011551 HYDRAFIL hydrogel vs conservative care Not applicable Nucleus augmentation
NCT06611397 Low-pulsed ultrasound vs sham Not applicable Noninvasive discogenic-pain treatment
NCT06703671 Electroacupuncture vs sham Not applicable Symptom treatment
NCT06778447 VIA Disc NP allograft vs sham Not applicable Nucleus-pulposus allograft
NCT07168603 Autologous nucleus-pulposus cells Phase 1/2 Early safety in disc degeneration
NCT07254806 IDCT/rebonuputemcel vs sham Phase 3 One-level mild-to-moderate symptomatic lumbar DDD
NCT07386548 BMAC for lumbar disc herniation Not listed Biologic injection
NCT07392333 Stryker OptaBlate BVN ablation Prospective cohort Real-world vertebrogenic outcomes
NCT07433634 Basivertebral ablation Prospective Time to relief

The registry query also returned NCT07011537, enrolling by invitation for a digital musculoskeletal program plus TENS versus standard care; its chronic-low-back-pain population is broader than imaging-defined DDD.

Active, not recruiting

NCT Intervention Question
NCT05182489 Adaptix titanium vs PEEK interbody cages Fusion implant comparison
NCT06053242 Intramuscular CELZ-201-DDT Systemic/peripheral cell-product safety and effectiveness for chronic low-back pain; not an intradiscal repair trial
NCT03737461 Allogeneic BM-MSC vs sham Phase 2/3 intradiscal trial; 113 participants enrolled
NCT06325566 Rexlemestrocel-L plus hyaluronic acid vs saline Phase 3 cell-product trial; estimated enrollment 300
NCT06615505 VIA Disc NP vs sham Phase 2; 121 participants enrolled

Active follow-up is especially important for fusion/device endpoints such as subsidence, fusion status and reoperation.

Not yet recruiting at the audit snapshot

NCT Intervention/design Evidence question
NCT06144970 TG-C dose escalation vs sham; phase 1 Safety and tolerability of a cell/gene-expression product in DDD-attributed pain
NCT07648927 MRI-informed physical-therapy allocation; 120 planned Whether structural phenotype can guide rehabilitation
NCT07668466 Intradiscal rhGDF-6, two doses; phase 1/2 Safety and early efficacy of a growth-factor strategy

“Not yet recruiting” records establish a registered protocol, not that enrollment will begin or that the intervention is available.

Completed studies

NCT Intervention/comparator Landscape contribution
NCT00394732 Disc prosthesis vs multidisciplinary rehabilitation Surgery versus active care
NCT00493558 Trabecular-metal cage with RSA Implant micromotion/fusion measurement
NCT01299077 Methycobal + eperisone + NSAID survey Medicine-use data; non-comparative limitations
NCT01502644 Oxycodone, morphine, placebo Opioid response and mood
NCT03002207 Autologous BMSC/gelatin sponge after discectomy Annular/disc defect repair
NCT03040310 Personalized Back Rx exercise Discogenic-pain rehabilitation
NCT03955315 IDCT vs sham Discogenic-cell phase 1 trial
NCT03958604 Burst neurostimulation Neuromodulation for discogenic pain
NCT04417855 Lumbar kinematics measurement Biomechanical phenotyping
NCT04600544 Russian disc degeneration observational study Natural-history/phenotyping
NCT05207813 Long-term Intracept follow-up BVN ablation durability
NCT05326594 McKenzie/SNAGs/multimodal PT Disc height, pain and function

Completed status does not guarantee posted results or peer-reviewed publication. Trials should be linked to publications by NCT, sponsor, sample size and intervention—not title resemblance alone.

Terminated, withdrawn, suspended and unknown

NCT Status on 2026-08-30 Intervention Why status matters
NCT03461458 Terminated Culture-expanded autologous mesenchymal stromal cells An early-ended program cannot establish product efficacy
NCT04544709 Terminated Intradiscal PRP Early stop may bias efficacy/safety record
NCT04934917 Terminated Pain-processing and structural MRI Loss of biomarker evidence
NCT05614284 Terminated Virtuos vs autograft in fusion Product evidence incomplete
NCT06589271 Suspended hUC-MSC plus endoscopic extraction Safety/regulatory/operational status requires checking
NCT01643681 Withdrawn Autologous adipose MSC No enrolled evidence
NCT03674190 Withdrawn ALIF vs total disc replacement Comparative gap remains
NCT05105490 Withdrawn PerQdisc nucleus replacement Postmarket evidence not generated
NCT02983747 Unknown PRP vs medication Stale status
NCT03912454 Unknown Intradiscal BMAC Stale status
NCT04414592 Unknown Umbilical-cord MSC Stale status
NCT05692440 Unknown Intracept BVN ablation Phase 4 status unclear

Unknown status should never be relabeled “ongoing.”

The same live condition query returned NCT07137559 as an expanded-access record for CELZ-201-DDT. Expanded access is a treatment-access mechanism, not a randomized efficacy study, and is therefore not counted among recruiting trials.

Rehabilitation trials

Rehabilitation trials commonly enroll nonspecific low-back pain; DDD-specific studies risk using imaging to define a biologically heterogeneous sample.

Design need Reason
Active comparator described “Usual care” varies
Exercise dose/adherence Treatment received matters
Imaging communication standardized Label can alter beliefs
Back and leg pain separated Phenotype preservation
Work and activity outcomes Real-world benefit
≥12-month follow-up Maintenance and recurrence

The broad exercise evidence is favorable but does not identify a disc-specific program (Hayden 2021, PMID 34580864; Fleckenstein 2022, PMID 35914641). The original risk-stratified-care result did not reproduce uniformly, showing implementation context matters (Hill 2011, PMID 21963002; Cherkin 2018, PMID 29790073).

Basivertebral nerve ablation program

Published prospective studies form a connected program:

Evidence stage Publication Key issue
Sham-controlled RCT Fischgrund 2018, PMID 29423885 Specific efficacy
Standard-care RCT Khalil 2019, PMID 31229663 Comparative effectiveness
12-month report Smuck 2021, PMID 34031220 Maintenance/crossover
24-month report Koreckij 2021, PMID 35141653 Durability
Five-year SMART arm Fischgrund 2020, PMID 32451777 Attrition and late response
Pooled five-year analysis Khalil 2024, PMID 39758714 Larger descriptive durability

The research question has shifted from “can this work in a selected group?” to independent replication, transportability, comparative sequencing and long-term harms.

Cell and biologic programs

Product class Published evidence Registry need
Disc progenitor cells/IDCT Randomized volume and clinical signal (PMID 38925869) Product-specific long-term follow-up
Allogeneic marrow MSC Small RCT and multicenter trial (PMID 27661661; PMID 39393844) Harmonized product/potency
Mesenchymal precursor cells Randomized 36-month reports (PMID 33045417; PMID 40174800) Replication and safety
PRP Small heterogeneous RCTs/reviews (PMID 35053999; PMID 32607308) Standard composition and sham
BMAC Low-quality evidence (PMID 32782864) Controlled trial and product assay

Biologic trials should not combine products under a “stem cell” label.

Hydrogel and nucleus replacement

NCT06011551 tests hydrogel augmentation against conservative management, while NCT05105490’s withdrawn postmarket PerQdisc study illustrates the evidence fragility of device programs.

Hydrogel trials need endpoints for:

  • extrusion/migration;
  • endplate pressure and fracture;
  • disc height/volume and composition;
  • pain/function and activity;
  • reintervention and MRI artifacts;
  • device degradation over years.

Preclinical hydrogel reviews cannot answer these clinical endpoints (Zhang 2025, PMID 41084298).

Fusion and arthroplasty trials

Historical disc-prosthesis RCTs established selected-device comparisons with fusion (Zigler 2012, PMID 23082846; Guyer 2009, PMID 18805066). NCT00394732 is important because it compares prosthesis with multidisciplinary rehabilitation rather than another operation.

Future trials should compare a surgical strategy with a credible optimized nonoperative pathway and report crossovers, reoperations and work outcomes.

Common design defects

Defect Bias produced
Imaging-only DDD entry Includes asymptomatic/incidental biology
Discography-defined sample Imports test uncertainty
Weak “usual care” Inflates procedure benefit
No sham for injection Contextual effect unresolved
Multiple primary time points Multiplicity/selective emphasis
Small single center Fragile, nontransportable estimate
Sponsor-owned analysis Conflict and reporting concern
Short follow-up Misses device/biologic late harms
Composite success only Hides component tradeoffs
Registry–publication mismatch Selective outcome reporting

Priority comparative trials

  1. Optimized rehabilitation versus BVN ablation in strictly defined vertebrogenic pain.
  2. BVN ablation versus fusion in shared equipoise, if ethically and clinically feasible.
  3. Standardized PRP versus credible sham with independent manufacture testing.
  4. Disc progenitor cells versus sham with five-to-ten-year structural and safety follow-up.
  5. Hydrogel augmentation versus active conservative care with blinded imaging core.
  6. Disc replacement versus modern multidisciplinary rehabilitation and fusion with lifetime registry linkage.
  7. Biomarker-stratified trials with prespecified treatment interactions.

Evidence deepening: discriminating findings (2026-08-30)

The added evidence below was selected to change interpretation, not merely increase citation count. Each result is kept within its studied phenotype and design.

Evidence Quantified or mechanistic finding Consequence for interpretation
Effectiveness of telerehabilitation in managing chronic low back pain: a pragmatic randomized controlled non-inferiority trial (Alahmri 2026, PMID 42284831) A pragmatic randomized noninferiority trial tested telerehabilitation for chronic low-back pain. Delivery-platform trials broaden access evidence but are not disc-phenotype trials.
Intradiscal Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Therapy for the Treatment of Low Back Pain Due to Moderate-to-Advanced Multilevel Disc Degeneration: A Preliminary Report of a Double-Blind, Phase IIB Randomized Clinical Trial (DREAM Study) (Vadalà 2025, PMID 40462867) The phase IIb DREAM trial randomized patients with moderate-to-advanced multilevel degeneration to autologous marrow stromal cells or sham. A sham-controlled multilevel phenotype tests both efficacy and whether advanced disease is biologically modifiable.
The Safety and Effectiveness of Orthobiologic Injections for Discogenic Chronic Low Back Pain: A Multicenter Prospective, Crossover, Randomized Controlled Trial with 12 Months Follow-up (Navani 2024, PMID 38285032) A 40-person randomized crossover trial compared intradiscal platelet-rich plasma, marrow concentrate and a non-intradiscal saline control. Small sample and crossover require effect estimates with periods and carryover disclosed.
A comprehensive review of cell transplantation and platelet-rich plasma therapy for the treatment of disc degeneration-related back and neck pain: A systematic evidence-based analysis (Schol 2024, PMID 38919468) A review screened 7,623 records and retained 80 articles representing 68 human cell or platelet-product studies and at least 1,974 treated participants. Numerical volume overstates certainty when products and controls are heterogeneous.
Platelet-Rich Plasma vs. Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Lumbar Disc Degeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Salamanna 2026, PMID 42123394) A recent synthesis included 21 PRP or mesenchymal-cell studies, nine randomized and 12 prospective. Head-to-head product superiority remains unresolved despite a growing evidence base.
Total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases - a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (Bai 2019, PMID 31335704) Fourteen randomized trials informed a total-disc-replacement versus fusion meta-analysis. Mature device trials remain a separate evidence stream from biologic regeneration.
Stem cell therapy for degenerative disc disease (Ferraz 2026, PMID 41608524) Thirteen low-to-moderate-quality clinical trials showed modest pain/disability improvement but no compelling imaging proof of repair; preclinical regeneration was more consistent than clinical evidence. Clinical benefit and biological regeneration remain separate hypotheses.
Hydrogel-based biomaterials for intervertebral-disc treatment (Zheng 2021, PMID 33660950) Tunable water retention and mechanics motivate nucleus-like hydrogels, but material origin, integration, extrusion and durability remain product-specific barriers. A hydrogel is a platform class, not a transferable efficacy claim.
Basivertebral selection, utilization and cost evidence (Ehsanian 2025, PMID 41146940) Type 1/2 Modic selection defines a vertebrogenic trial stream. These data should not be pooled with generic DDD or annular-pain studies.
Overlapping low-back-pain mechanisms (Knezevic 2021, PMID 34115979) Nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic mechanisms overlap, while imaging and diagnostic injections have low specificity. Trial eligibility must preserve phenotype rather than use DDD as a catch-all.

Controversy carried forward

These additions narrow several claims but do not create a diagnostic gold standard. Where an imaging, molecular or treatment-response signal conflicts with sham-controlled, longitudinal or population evidence, the conflict is retained as a selection and transportability problem rather than resolved by vote.

Open questions

  • Which registered trials have unpublished results, and do nonpublication patterns favor positive studies?
  • Can phenotype and outcome data be harmonized across cell-product trials? (Schneider 2022, PMID 34352363)
  • Will recruiting nucleus-allograft and hydrogel studies show clinical benefit beyond procedure context? (NCT06778447; NCT06011551)
  • How do new BVN devices compare with the published Intracept program? (NCT07392333)
  • What minimum follow-up is adequate for tumorigenicity, ectopic tissue and implant failure? (Gornet 2024, PMID 38925869)

References

  1. Fischgrund JS, Rhyne A, Franke J, et al. Intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation for the treatment of chronic low back pain: a prospective randomized double-blind sham-controlled multi-center study. European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society. 2018;27(5):1146-1156. PMID 29423885
  2. Gornet MF, Beall DP, Davis TT, et al. Allogeneic Disc Progenitor Cells Safely Increase Disc Volume and Improve Pain, Disability, and Quality of Life in Patients With Lumbar Disc Degeneration-Results of an FDA-Approved Biologic Therapy Randomized Clinical Trial. International journal of spine surgery. 2024;18(3):237-248. PMID 38925869
  3. Hayden JA, Ellis J, Ogilvie R, et al. Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2021;9(9):CD009790. PMID 34580864
  4. Fleckenstein J, Floessel P, Engel T, et al. Individualized Exercise in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis on the Effects of Exercise Alone or in Combination with Psychological Interventions on Pain and Disability. The journal of pain. 2022;23(11):1856-1873. PMID 35914641
  5. Hill JC, Whitehurst DG, Lewis M, et al. Comparison of stratified primary care management for low back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet (London, England). 2011;378(9802):1560-71. PMID 21963002
  6. Cherkin D, Balderson B, Wellman R, et al. Effect of Low Back Pain Risk-Stratification Strategy on Patient Outcomes and Care Processes: the MATCH Randomized Trial in Primary Care. Journal of general internal medicine. 2018;33(8):1324-1336. PMID 29790073
  7. Khalil JG, Smuck M, Koreckij T, et al. A prospective, randomized, multicenter study of intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation for the treatment of chronic low back pain. The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2019;19(10):1620-1632. PMID 31229663
  8. Smuck M, Khalil J, Barrette K, et al. Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation for the treatment of chronic low back pain: 12-month results. Regional anesthesia and pain medicine. 2021;46(8):683-693. PMID 34031220
  9. Koreckij T, Kreiner S, Khalil JG, et al. Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation for the treatment of chronic low back pain: 24-Month treatment arm results. North American Spine Society journal. 2021;8:100089. PMID 35141653
  10. Fischgrund JS, Rhyne A, Macadaeg K, et al. Long-term outcomes following intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation for the treatment of chronic low back pain: 5-year treatment arm results from a prospective randomized double-blind sham-controlled multi-center study. European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society. 2020;29(8):1925-1934. PMID 32451777
  11. Khalil JG, Truumees E, Macadaeg K, et al. Intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation: A 5-year pooled analysis from three prospective clinical trials. Interventional pain medicine. 2024;3(4):100529. PMID 39758714
  12. Noriega DC, Ardura F, Hernández-Ramajo R, et al. Intervertebral Disc Repair by Allogeneic Mesenchymal Bone Marrow Cells: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Transplantation. 2017;101(8):1945-1951. PMID 27661661
  13. Pers YM, Soler-Rich R, Vadalà G, et al. Allogenic bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cell-based therapy for patients with chronic low back pain: a prospective, multicentre, randomised placebo controlled trial (RESPINE study). Annals of the rheumatic diseases. 2024;83(11):1572-1583. PMID 39393844
  14. Amirdelfan K, Bae H, McJunkin T, et al. Allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells treatment for chronic low back pain associated with degenerative disc disease: a prospective randomized, placebo-controlled 36-month study of safety and efficacy. The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2021;21(2):212-230. PMID 33045417
  15. Beall DP, Bae HW, DePalma MJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells with and without hyaluronic acid for treatment of chronic low back pain: a prospective, randomized, double blind, concurrent-controlled 36-month study. The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2025;25(9):1997-2013. PMID 40174800
  16. Akeda K, Ohishi K, Takegami N, et al. Platelet-Rich Plasma Releasate versus Corticosteroid for the Treatment of Discogenic Low Back Pain: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of clinical medicine. 2022;11(2). PMID 35053999
  17. Hirase T, Jack Ii RA, Sochacki KR, et al. Systemic Review: Is an Intradiscal Injection of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Lumbar Disc Degeneration Effective? Cureus. 2020;12(6):e8831. PMID 32607308
  18. Hirase T, Jack RA, Sochacki KR, et al. Systematic Review: Is Intradiscal Injection of Bone Marrow Concentrate for Lumbar Disc Degeneration Effective? Cureus. 2020;12(7):e9045. PMID 32782864
  19. Zhang J, Wang Z, Chen S, et al. From molecular regulation to tissue repair: hydrogels in the fight against intervertebral disc degeneration. Annals of medicine. 2025;57(1):2572310. PMID 41084298
  20. Zigler JE, Delamarter RB. Five-year results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential arthrodesis for the treatment of single-level degenerative disc disease. Journal of neurosurgery. Spine. 2012;17(6):493-501. PMID 23082846
  21. Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Banco RJ, et al. Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: five-year follow-up. The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2009;9(5):374-86. PMID 18805066
  22. Schneider BJ, Hunt C, Conger A, et al. The effectiveness of intradiscal biologic treatments for discogenic low back pain: a systematic review. The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2022;22(2):226-237. PMID 34352363
  23. Alahmri F, Alkhawajah HA, Nuhmani S, Muaidi Q. Effectiveness of telerehabilitation in managing chronic low back pain: a pragmatic randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. International journal of medical informatics. 2026;218:106540. PMID 42284831
  24. Vadalà G, Russo F, Lavazza C, Petrucci G, Ambrosio L, Budelli S, et al. Intradiscal Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Therapy for the Treatment of Low Back Pain Due to Moderate-to-Advanced Multilevel Disc Degeneration: A Preliminary Report of a Double-Blind, Phase IIB Randomized Clinical Trial (DREAM Study). JOR spine. 2025;8(2):e70086. PMID 40462867
  25. Navani A, Ambach M, Calodney A, Rosenthal R, Li G, Mahoney CB, et al. The Safety and Effectiveness of Orthobiologic Injections for Discogenic Chronic Low Back Pain: A Multicenter Prospective, Crossover, Randomized Controlled Trial with 12 Months Follow-up. Pain physician. 2024;27(1):E65-E77. PMID 38285032
  26. Schol J, Tamagawa S, Volleman TNE, Ishijima M, Sakai D. A comprehensive review of cell transplantation and platelet-rich plasma therapy for the treatment of disc degeneration-related back and neck pain: A systematic evidence-based analysis. JOR spine. 2024;7(2):e1348. PMID 38919468
  27. Salamanna F, Ghermandi R, Veronesi F, Borsari V, Griffoni C, Gasbarrini A, et al. Platelet-Rich Plasma vs. Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Lumbar Disc Degeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International journal of molecular sciences. 2026;27(9):3810. PMID 42123394
  28. Bai DY, Liang L, Zhang BB, Zhu T, Zhang HJ, Yuan ZG, et al. Total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases - a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine. 2019;98(29):e16460. PMID 31335704
  29. Ferraz VR, Goulart CR, de Souza MFRFF, Furlan MOCS, Mercier P, Mattei TA, et al. Stem cell therapy for degenerative disc disease: A systematic review of preclinical evidence, clinical translation, and future directions. North American Spine Society journal. 2026;25:100841. PMID 41608524
  30. Zheng K, Du D. Recent advances of hydrogel-based biomaterials for intervertebral disc tissue treatment: A literature review. Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. 2021;15(4):299-321. PMID 33660950
  31. Ehsanian R, Buttner JA, Schneider B, McCormick ZL. Patient selection, clinical outcomes, associated healthcare utilization, and cost-effectiveness of basivertebral nerve ablation for the treatment of vertebrogenic low back pain: A narrative review. North American Spine Society journal. 2025;24:100788. PMID 41146940
  32. Knezevic NN, Candido KD, Vlaeyen JWS, Van Zundert J, Cohen SP. Low back pain. Lancet. 2021;398(10294):78-92. PMID 34115979