Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16688473›Full record

ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2007

The development of an evidence-based patient booklet for patients undergoing lumbar discectomy and un-instrumented decompression.

A H McGregor, A K Burton, P Sell, G Waddell

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Clinical course of pain and disability following primary lumbar discectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.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
    Pooled it
  2. Rehabilitation following surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Patients' views on an education booklet following 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 · 2012
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. The reassuring potential of spinal imaging results: development and testing of a brief, psycho-education intervention for patients attending secondary care.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
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Reviewer's comment on "five-year outcome of surgical decompression of the lumbar spine without fusion" by Mannion AF, Denzler R, Dvorak J, Grob D (doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1535-2).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 · 2010
    Article
  20. A survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2007.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 · 2008
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

A H McGregorBiosurgery and Surgical Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, Charing Cross Hospital Campus, London W6 8RF, UK. a.mcgregor@imperial.ac.uk
A K Burton
P Sell
G Waddell

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Post-operative management after lumbar surgery is inconsistent leading to uncertainty amongst surgeons and patients about post-operative restrictions, reactivation, and return to work. This study aimed to review the evidence on post-operative management, with a view to developing evidence-based messages for a patient booklet on post-operative management after lumbar discectomy or un-instrumented decompression. A systematic literature search produced a best-evidence synthesis of information and advice on post-operative restrictions, activation, rehabilitation, and expectations about outcomes. Evidence statements were extracted and developed into patient-centred messages for an educational booklet. The draft text was evaluated by peer and patient review. The literature review found little evidence for post-operative activity restrictions, and a strong case for an early active approach to post-operative management. The booklet was built around key messages derived from the literature review and aimed to reduce uncertainty, promote positive beliefs, encourage early reactivation, and provide practical advice on self-management. Feedback from the evaluations were favourable from both review groups, suggesting that this evidence-based approach to management is acceptable and it has clinical potential.

Indexed as

PamphletsPostoperative CareDecompression, SurgicalDiskectomyEvidence-Based MedicineHumansInformation DisseminationLumbar VertebraePatient Education as TopicSelf CareTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID16688473
PMCPMC2200695

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.