Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10796435›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000

Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis.

J N Gibson, G Waddell, I C Grant

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Do patient expectations of spinal surgery relate to functional outcome?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2008
    Article
  7. The impact of surgical wait time on patient-based outcomes in posterior lumbar spinal surgery.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 · 2007
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

J N GibsonClinical Research Unit, Princess Margaret Rose, Orthopaedic Hospital, Edinburgh EH10 7ED, UK. J.N.A.Gibson@ed.ac.uk
G Waddell
I C Grant
Edinburgh Royal Infirmary · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis section is under preparation and will be included in the next issue

objectivesDegenerative conditions affecting the lumbar spine are variously described as lumbar spondylosis or degenerative disc disease (which we regarded as one entity) and are associated with back pain, instability, spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of surgical interventions for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylosis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, Embase, Biosis, Dissertation Abstracts, Index to UK Thesis, and reference lists of the retrieved articles and we corresponded with experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials of surgical treatment of lumbar spondylosis DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted data from published papers. Additional information was sought from the authors if necessary. MAIN

resultsFourteen published trials of all forms of surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spondylosis were identified. There were many serious weaknesses of trial design, including poor methods of randomisation, lack of blinding and lack of independent assessment of outcome which at times gave considerable potential for bias. Most of the published results were reporting on technical surgical outcomes with some crude ratings of clinical outcome, but few patient-centred outcomes of pain, disability or capacity for work. There was a particular lack of long-term outcomes. This review found no published trials comparing any form of surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis compared with natural history, placebo, or any form of conservative treatment. Nine trials randomly compared instrumented and non-instrumented fusion. Instrumented fusion produced a higher fusion rate (though that needs to be qualified by the difficulty of assessing fusion in the presence of metal-work) but did not improve clinical outcomes and there is evidence that it may be associated with higher complication rates. The few and heterogeneous trials on spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis and nerve compression permitted very limited conclusions. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThere is no scientific evidence about the effectiveness of any form of surgical decompression or fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylosis compared with natural history, placebo, or conservative treatment.

Indexed as

Lumbar VertebraeDecompression, SurgicalHumansLaminectomySpinal DiseasesSpinal FusionSpinal OsteophytosisSpinal StenosisSpondylolisthesis

Identifiers

PMID10796435
OpenAlexW4252765523

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.