ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2004
Neurosurgeons' management of lumbosacral radicular syndrome evaluated against a clinical guideline.
Article in 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, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A survey among Korea Medicine doctors (KMDs) in Korea on patterns of integrative Korean Medicine practice for lumbar intervertebral disc displacement: Preliminary research for clinical practice guidelines.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2015Article
- Comparison of lumbar spine stabilization exercise versus general exercise in young male patients with lumbar disc herniation after 1 year of follow-up.International journal of clinical and experimental medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To establish to what extent neurosurgeons subscribe to the lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LRS) guideline, and to evaluate their current management of patients with LRS against the guideline. All active neurosurgeons in the Netherlands (n=92) were mailed a questionnaire about the guideline and data from 66 responders were analysed. Patients were recruited via seven of the participating neurosurgeons and were interviewed once by telephone. The medical records of the participating patients (n=163) were also examined. Of the 26 propositions in the LRS guideline, seven were not fully endorsed by the neurosurgeons. Three of these seven propositions may need updating based on "new evidence". The time between the onset of the LRS episode and the actual moment of surgery was considerably longer than that recommended in the guideline. Based on their current management of LRS patients, the neurosurgeons largely adhere with the LRS guideline.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.