Correction to: Physical prognostic factors predicting outcome following lumbar discectomy surgery: systematic review and narrative synthesis.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

1. Development and temporal validation of clinical prediction models for 1-year disability and pain after lumbar decompressive surgery. The Norwich Lumbar Surgery Predictor (development version).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 · 2023
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  Physical prognostic factors predicting outcome following lumbar discectomy surgery: systematic review and narrative synthesis.2018

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract