ArticleBritish journal of sports medicine2015
Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomised controlled trial.
Article in British journal of sports medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mobility-Preserving Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: WFNS Spine Committee Recommendations.World neurosurgery: X · 2020Article
- Utilization of Interspinous Devices Throughout the United States Over a Recent Decade: An Analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample.Global spine journal · 2018Article
- [Spinal column: implants and revisions].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Reprint of
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
study questionIs interspinous process device implantation more effective in the short term (eight weeks) than conventional surgical decompression for patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis? SUMMARY ANSWER: The use of interspinous implants did not result in a better outcome than conventional decompression, but the reoperation rate was significantly higher. WHAT IS KNOWN AND WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Bony decompression and treatment with interspinous process devices are superior to conservative and non-surgical treatment for intermittent neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis. Interspinous implants surgery is not superior to bony decompression, and the reoperation rate is significantly higher.
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.