Trial reportAdvances in rheumatology (London, England)2021
Surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Advances in rheumatology (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02879461 (Prospective Study Comparing Surgical Decompression Associated With Physical Therapy And Physical Therapy Isolated In Patients With Lumbar Canal Stenosis), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Prospective Study Comparing Surgical Decompression Associated With Physical Therapy And Physical Therapy Isolated In Patients With Lumbar Canal Stenosis
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy versus Microendoscopic Discectomy for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Comprehensive Review.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- Review
- A propensity-matched study of patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis opting for surgery versus not.Brain & spine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of surgery for the management of patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.
methodsSixty-three patients with lumbar canal stenosis were randomized into two groups: the intervention group (IG) and control group (CG). IG patients underwent surgery and both groups participated in the same physical therapy program twice a week for a period of 12 weeks and were followed up at 1 year. The primary endpoint was visual analogue scale for pain, and the secondary endpoints were function (6-min walk test, Roland Morris and Oswestry questionnaires), quality of life (SF-36 questionnaire) and satisfaction with treatment (Likert scale).
resultsNo significant difference between groups was observed for pain over time (p = 0.145). Significant differences between groups, in favor of the IG, were observed for the Oswestry score (p = 0.006) and vitality domain score of the SF-36 (p = 0.047). Function in the Roland Morris and 6-min walk test and the role of the physical domain of SF-36 also showed significant differences between the groups; however, these differences occurred due to a worsening of the IG in the short term, and the medium-term. The Likert scale demonstrated greater satisfaction with the IG treatment compared to control group.
conclusionsLumbar stenosis surgery did not improve pain in short and medium terms. Function and vitality were better in the group that underwent surgery in the medium term, and patients were more satisfied with the surgical treatment.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02879461 ).
Indexed as
Identifiers
33980309What 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.