Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22772352›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2012

Prediction of long-term clinical outcome in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

B Micankova Adamova, S Vohanka, L Dusek, J Jarkovsky, J Bednarik

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Outcomes and their predictors in lumbar spinal stenosis: a 12-year follow-up.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 · 2015
    Observational
  10. Should age be a contraindication for degenerative lumbar 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 · 2014
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Neurological impairment score in lumbar spinal stenosis.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 · 2013
    Article
  13. The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "medical" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2012.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 · 2013
    Article
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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

B Micankova AdamovaDepartment of Neurology, Faculty Hospital and Masaryk University Brno, Jihlavska 20, 62500 Brno, Czech Republic. badamova@fnbrno.cz
S Vohanka
L Dusek
J Jarkovsky
J Bednarik
Masaryk University · CZCentral European Institute of Technology · CZCentral European Institute of Technology – Masaryk University · CZUniversity Hospital Brno · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe natural course of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) fluctuates and is not necessarily progressive. The aim of this study was to explore the predictors of clinical outcome in patients with LSS that might eventually help to optimise the therapeutic choices.

methodsA group of 56 patients (27 men, 29 women, median age 55; range 31-72 years) with clinically symptomatic mild-to-moderate LSS were re-examined after a median period of 88 months and their clinical outcomes classified as satisfactory (34 patients, 60.7 % with stable or improved clinical status) or unsatisfactory (22 patients, 39.3 % for whom clinical status deteriorated). A wide range of demographical, clinical, imaging and electrophysiological entry parameters were evaluated as possible predictors of clinical outcome.

resultsUnlike the demographical, clinical and imaging variables, certain electrophysiological parameters were significantly associated with unsatisfactory outcomes. There was a significantly higher prevalence of pluriradicular involvement detected by EMG in patients with unsatisfactory outcome than those with satisfactory outcome (68.2 vs. 32.3 %; p = 0.035). Patients with unsatisfactory outcome had more frequent bilateral abnormalities of the soleus H-reflex (50.0 vs. 14.7 %; p = 0.015) and lower mean H-reflex amplitude. Multivariate logistic regression proposed two variables as mutually independent predictors of unsatisfactory outcome: EMG signs of pluriradicular involvement (OR = 3.72) and averaged soleus H-reflex amplitude ≤ 2.8 mV (OR = 2.87).

conclusionsSatisfactory outcomes were disclosed in about 61 % of the patients with mild-to-moderate LSS in a 7-year follow-up. Electrophysiological abnormalities, namely the presence of pluriradicular involvement and abnormalities of the soleus H-reflex, were predictive of deterioration of clinical status in these patients.

Indexed as

AdultAgedDisease ProgressionElectromyographyFemaleH-ReflexHumansLumbar VertebraeMaleMiddle AgedOdds RatioROC CurveSpinal Stenosis

Identifiers

PMID22772352
PMCPMC3508241
OpenAlexW1974659863

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.