ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2022
A Differential Clinical Benefit Examination of Full Lumbar Endoscopy vs Interspinous Process Spacers in the Treatment of Spinal Stenosis: An Effect Size Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression: Defining Its Scope and Limitations.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- Lumbar Spinal Endoscopy: Mature, Durable, and Established-Not Investigational.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designA design-agnostic standardized effect meta-analysis of 48 randomized, prospective, and retrospective studies on clinical outcomes with spinal endoscopic and interspinous process spacer (IPS) surgery.
objectiveThe study aimed to provide reference set of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) effect size data for back and leg pain following endoscopic and IPS decompression for lumbar herniated disc, foraminal, or lateral recess spinal stenosis.
backgroundMechanical low back pain following endoscopic transforaminal decompression may be more reliably reduced by simultaneous posterior column stabilization with IPS.
methodsA systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1 January 2000 to 2 April 2020, identified 880 eligible endoscopy and 362 IPS studies varying in design and metrics. The authors compared calculated standardized effect sizes (Cohen's
resultsThe pooled standardized effect size combining the ODI, VAS-back, and VAS-leg data for the total sample of 19862 data sets from the 30 endoscopy and 18 IPS was 0.877 (95% CI = 0.857-0.898). When stratified by surgery, the combined effect sizes were 0.877 (95% CI = 0.849-0.905) for endoscopic decompression and 0.863 (95% CI = 0.796-0.930;
conclusionLumbar IPS implantation produces larger reduction in low back pain than spinal endoscopy. On the basis of this meta-analysis, the combination of lumbar transforaminal endoscopy with simultaneous IPS has merits and should be formally investigated in higher grade clinical studies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Meta-analysis on the added clinical benefit of combining lumbar endoscopic decompression with an interspinous process spacer. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2:
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.