ArticleMedicine2020
Efficacy and safety of percutaneous endoscopic decompression via transforaminal and interlaminar approaches for lumbar spine stenosis: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Comparative study between full-endoscopic laminectomy and microendoscopic laminectomy for the treatment of lumbar spinal canal stenosis.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common and frequently-occurring disease in the elderly. Percutaneous endoscopic decompression (PED) has become the first choice for the treatment of LSS because of its small wound, mild pain and rapid recovery. The surgical approaches are mainly divided into percutaneous interlaminar approach and transforaminal approach. However, these two surgical approaches have their own advantages, disadvantages and indications. Hence, the present study aims to synthesize the available direct and indirect evidence of transforaminal approach and interlaminar approach to prove their respective advantages and disadvantages.
methodsThe following databases will be searched: Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang data, and China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM). The search dates will be set from the inception to November 2019. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. The efficacy outcomes including: Back and Leg Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, the MacNab criteria, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score. The safety outcomes including: incidence of complications (dura tear, incomplete decompression, reoperation, etc.). The meta-analysis will be conducted using Stata 12.0 software. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) will be used to assess evidence quality.
resultsThe results of this meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
conclusionThe meta-analysis will provide a comprehensive summary of the evidence for 2 approaches to PED in patients with LSS. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019128080.
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.