ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022
Radiological and functional assessment in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Latent pain class identification, longitudinal transitions, and machine learning prediction of incident low back pain in middle-aged and older Chinese adults.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Functional recovery after lumbar spinal stenosis surgery: Postural balance and residual urine as objective markers.Brain & spine · 2025Article
- Quantification of cauda equina nerve root dispersion through radiomics features in weight-bearing MRI in normal subjects and spinal canal stenosis patients.European radiology · 2024Article
- Mechanical Needling With Sterile Water Versus Lidocaine Injection for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Full endoscopic percutaneous stenoscopic lumbar decompression and discectomy: An outcome and efficacy analysis on 606 lumbar stenosis patients.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) may have impaired postural control, current diagnosis of LSS depends mainly on clinical manifestation and radiological assessment, while functional assessment of postural balance remains less investigated. This study thus correlated radiological assessment via MR imaging with functional assessment using foam posturography in LSS patients.
methodsForty-seven LSS patients aged 50-85 years were enrolled. All patients received subjective outcome measures first, followed by plain radiography of whole spine and lumbosacral spine, MR imaging, and foam posturography under four conditions. Then, these results were analyzed using stepwise multiple regression analysis. Another 47 age- and sex-matched healthy controls also underwent foam posturography for comparison.
resultsThe LSS group revealed significant increases in the sway area of foam posturography than the control group regardless of various conditions. Advanced age, poor walking endurance, and neural compression at the L2/3 level on MR images were significantly correlated with the characteristic parameters of foam posturography (p < 0.05). In contrast, subjectively reported pain and plain radiography did not correlate with posturographic results (p > 0.05).
conclusionsPatients with LSS who exhibit less severe symptoms do not ensure normal postural balance. Functional assessment (foam posturography) on postural balance significantly correlated with radiological assessment (MR imaging) in LSS patients. The use of foam posturography may help assess postural control in LSS patients. It takes a short time and costs less, and would be practical to make this a routine examination in LSS patients.
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.