ArticleSpine2006
A review of the 2001 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies: lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish lumbar spine study group.
Article in Spine, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diabetes Is Predictive of Postoperative Outcomes and Readmission Following Posterior Lumbar Fusion.Global spine journal · 2022Article
- Analysis of Risk Factors for Adjacent Segment Degeneration after Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion at Lumbosacral Spine.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2022Article
- Cell Therapy for Treatment of Intervertebral Disc Degeneration: A Systematic Review.Global spine journal · 2019Article
- Clinical outcomes of single-level lumbar artificial disc replacement compared with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in an Asian population.Singapore medical journal · 2015Article
- One-stage combined lumbo-sacral fusion, by anterior then posterior approach: clinical and radiological results.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 · 2013Article
- Biologically based therapy for the intervertebral disk: who is the patient?Global spine journal · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The current debate over the efficacy of lumbar fusion for low back pain has not been settled. Fritzell et al published a landmark paper entitled "Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish lumbar spine study group." Their goal was to provide objective evidence supporting lumbar fusion. While it was well designed and important to our knowledge base, it has limitations. We set out to review their work in an unbiased yet critical manner. Our goals are to summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the paper, place it in the context of current knowledge, and highlight its significance for present-day practice and research. From technical and study design perspectives, Fritzell et al were able to validate the use of lumbar fusion for the treatment of low back pain. However, their use of "usual nonoperative" care and nonspecific definition of low back pain precluded a truly genuine comparison of operative and nonoperative groups. We commend the Swedish lumbar spine study group and their remarkable efforts; they elevated the sophistication of spine research and spawned many more excellent works to help settle the ongoing controversy on the ideal treatment of low back pain.
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.