Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30646197›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2019

Comparative Clinical Effectiveness of Nonsurgical Treatment Methods in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Michael J Schneider, Carlo Ammendolia, Donald R Murphy, Ronald M Glick, Elizabeth Hile, Dana L Tudorascu, Sally C Morton, Clair Smith, Charity G Patterson, Sara R Piva

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01943435 (A Comparison of Non-Surgical Treatment Methods for Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis), which is not on this map. Cited by 40 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT01943435 nacompletednot on this map

A Comparison of Non-Surgical Treatment Methods for Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

TypeinterventionalSponsorMichael Schneider, DC, PhDRan2013 to 2016Enrolled259ConditionsLumbar Spinal StenosisArmsNSAIDs, adjunctive analgesics, adjunctive anti-depressants, Lumbar epidural injection, Joint Mobilizations (spine, sacroiliac, hip)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 97 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Efficacy and characteristics of physiotherapy interventions in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review.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 · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Michael J SchneiderDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Carlo AmmendoliaInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Donald R MurphyDepartment of Family Medicine, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Ronald M GlickDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Elizabeth HileCollege of Allied Health, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City.
Dana L TudorascuDepartment of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Sally C MortonDepartment of Statistics, College of Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.
Clair SmithDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Charity G PattersonDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Sara R PivaDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
University of Pittsburgh · USBrown University · USUniversity of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center · USUniversity of Toronto · CAVirginia Tech · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most common reason for spine surgery in older US adults. There is an evidence gap about nonsurgical LSS treatment options. Objective: To explore the comparative clinical effectiveness of 3 nonsurgical interventions for patients with LSS. Design, Setting, and Participants: Three-arm randomized clinical trial of 3 years' duration (November 2013 to June 2016). Analysis began in August 2016. All interventions were delivered during 6 weeks with follow-up at 2 months and 6 months at an outpatient research clinic. Patients older than 60 years with LSS were recruited from the general public. Eligibility required anatomical evidence of central canal and/or lateral recess stenosis (magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography) and clinical symptoms associated with LSS (neurogenic claudication; less symptoms with flexion). Analysis was intention to treat. Interventions: Medical care, group exercise, and manual therapy/individualized exercise. Medical care consisted of medications and/or epidural injections provided by a physiatrist. Group exercise classes were supervised by fitness instructors in senior community centers. Manual therapy/individualized exercise consisted of spinal mobilization, stretches, and strength training provided by chiropractors and physical therapists. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were between-group differences at 2 months in self-reported symptoms and physical function measured by the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire (score range, 12-55) and a measure of walking capacity using the self-paced walking test (meters walked for 0 to 30 minutes). Results: A total of 259 participants (mean [SD] age, 72.4 [7.8] years; 137 women [52.9%]) were allocated to medical care (88 [34.0%]), group exercise (84 [32.4%]), or manual therapy/individualized exercise (87 [33.6%]). Adjusted between-group analyses at 2 months showed manual therapy/individualized exercise had greater improvement of symptoms and physical function compared with medical care (-2.0; 95% CI, -3.6 to -0.4) or group exercise (-2.4; 95% CI, -4.1 to -0.8). Manual therapy/individualized exercise had a greater proportion of responders (≥30% improvement) in symptoms and physical function (20%) and walking capacity (65.3%) at 2 months compared with medical care (7.6% and 48.7%, respectively) or group exercise (3.0% and 46.2%, respectively). At 6 months, there were no between-group differences in mean outcome scores or responder rates. Conclusions and Relevance: A combination of manual therapy/individualized exercise provides greater short-term improvement in symptoms and physical function and walking capacity than medical care or group exercises, although all 3 interventions were associated with improvements in long-term walking capacity. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01943435.

Indexed as

Spinal StenosisAgedAmbulatory Care FacilitiesConservative TreatmentExercise TherapyFemaleHumansInjections, EpiduralLumbar VertebraeMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMedication Therapy ManagementMiddle AgedMusculoskeletal ManipulationsOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID30646197
PMCPMC6324321
OpenAlexW2907530783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.