SynthesisNeurosurgical review2017
Interspinous process devices for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and Safety of the Use of Interspinous Spacers in the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Mapping Gap and Scoping Review.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2026Article
- Biomechanical Evaluation of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Coflex-F and Pedicle Screw Fixation: Finite Element Analysis of Static and Vibration Conditions.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Article
- Analysis of Long-Term Results of Lumbar Discectomy With and Without an Interspinous Device.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- Best Practices for Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Treatment 2.0 (MIST): Consensus Guidance from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN).Journal of pain research · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to compare interspinous process device (IPD) implantation to other methods for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC). PubMed and Cochrane library were searched in December 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IPD implantation and nonoperative therapy or laminectomy with/without spinal fusion for the treatment of NIC due to spinal stenosis or low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis were included. Meta-analysis and qualitative analysis were conducted as appropriate. Eleven articles (eight RCTs) were included, with two having high risk of bias. These RCTs were divided into three groups according to control cohort interventions: IPD implantation was compared with nonoperative treatment (group 1, n = 3), laminectomy (group 2, n = 3), and laminectomy associated with instrumented spinal fusion (group 3, n = 2). Group 1 studies reported better Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) scores for the IPD group. In group 2, two studies reported comparable ZCQ scores and one revealed comparable visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores; pooled analysis showed a higher reoperation rate in patients treated with IPD. In group 3, one study found that more patients in IPD group gained more than 25 % improvement in VAS and ODI, with lower complication rate; the other reported better ZCQ scores in the IPD group and comparable complication and reoperation rates. IPD implantation is more effective than the other methods, but not superior to laminectomy in treating NIC.
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.