Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27683693›Full record

ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2016

Interspinous process spacers versus traditional decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kevin Phan, Prashanth J Rao, Jonathon R Ball, Ralph J Mobbs

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Is the interspinous process device safe and effective in elderly patients with lumbar degeneration? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.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 · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. ChatGPT versus NASS clinical guidelines for degenerative spondylolisthesis: a comparative 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 · 2024
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kevin PhanNeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Prince of Wales Private Hospital, Sydney, Australia;; University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia;
Prashanth J RaoNeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Prince of Wales Private Hospital, Sydney, Australia;; University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia;; Royal North Shore Hospital (RNSH), Sydney, Australia.
Jonathon R BallRoyal North Shore Hospital (RNSH), Sydney, Australia.
Ralph J MobbsNeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Prince of Wales Private Hospital, Sydney, Australia;; University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia;
Royal North Shore Hospital · AUPrince of Wales Hospital · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInterspinous spacers are used in selected patients for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. The uses of interspinous devices are still debated, with reports of significantly higher reoperation rates and unfavourable cost-effectiveness compared to traditional decompression techniques.

methodsSix electronic databases were searched from their date of inception to December 2015. Relevant studies were identified using specific eligibility criteria and data was extracted and analyzed based on predefined primary and secondary endpoints.

resultsEleven comparative studies were obtained for qualitative and quantitative assessment, data extraction and analysis. There was no significant difference in VAS back pain, leg pain or ODI scores for standalone interspinous process device (IPD) vs. bony decompression. However, standalone IPD was associated with lower surgical complications (4% vs. 8.7%, P=0.03) but higher long-term reoperation rates (23.7% vs. 8.5%, P<0.00001). IPD as an adjunct to decompression had comparable patient-reported scores, complications and reoperation rates to decompression alone.

conclusionsCurrent evidence indicates no superiority for mid- to long-term patient-reported outcomes for IPD compared with traditional bony decompression, with lesser surgical complications but at the risk of significantly higher reoperation rates and costs.

Indexed as

decompressionInterspinous processlumbar stenosisspacersystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27683693
PMCPMC5039840
OpenAlexW2313103286

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.