Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35444041›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2022

Differential Agnostic Effect Size Analysis of Lumbar Stenosis Surgeries.

Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski, Ivo Abraham, Jorge Felipe Ramírez León, José Antonio Soriano Sánchez, Álvaro Dowling, Stefan Hellinger, Max Rogério Freitas Ramos, Paulo Sérgio Teixeira De Carvalho, Christopher Yeung, Nima Salari and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

11 authors.

Kai-Uwe LewandrowskiCenter for Advanced Spine Care of Southern Arizona and Surgical Institute of Tucson, Tucson, AZ, USA business@tucsonspine.com.
Ivo AbrahamFamily and Community Medicine, Clinical Translational Sciences at the University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
Jorge Felipe Ramírez LeónCentro de Cirugía de Mínima Invasión, CECIMIN - Clínica Reina Sofía, Bogotá, Colombia.
José Antonio Soriano SánchezNeurosurgeon and Minimally Invasive Spine Surgeon, Head of the Spine Clinic of The American-British Cowdray Medical Center I.A.P. Campus Santa Fe [Centro Médico ABC Campus Santa Fe], Santa Fe, Mexico.
Álvaro DowlingDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, USP, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
Stefan HellingerDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Isar Hospital, Munich, Germany.
Max Rogério Freitas RamosOrthopedics and Traumatology, Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, UNIRIO, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Paulo Sérgio Teixeira De CarvalhoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, UNIRIO, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Christopher YeungDesert Institute for Spine Care, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Nima SalariDesert Institute for Spine Care, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Anthony YeungDesert Institute for Spine Care, Phoenix, AZ, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designA meta-analysis of 89 randomized prospective, prospective, and retrospective studies on spinal endoscopic surgery outcomes.

objectiveThe study aimed to provide familiar Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) back, and VAS leg effect size (ES) data following endoscopic decompression for sciatica-type back and leg pain due to lumbar herniated disc, foraminal, or lateral recess spinal stenosis.

backgroundHigher-grade objective clinical outcome ES data are more suitable than lower-grade clinical evidence, including cross-sectional retrospective study outcomes or expert opinion to underpin the ongoing debate on whether or not to replace some of the traditional open and with other forms of minimally invasive spinal decompression surgeries such as the endoscopic technique.

methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2019 identified 89 eligible studies on lumbar endoscopic decompression surgery enrolling 23,290 patient samples using the ODI and VAS for back and leg pain used for the ES calculation.

resultsThere was an overall mean overall reduction of ODI of 46.25 (SD 6.10), VAS back decrease of 3.29 (SD 0.65), and VAS leg reduction of 5.77 (SD 0.66), respectively. Reference tables of familiar ODI, VAS back, and VAS leg show no significant impact of study design, follow-up, or patients' age on ES observed with these outcome instruments. There was no correlation of ES with long-term follow-up (

conclusionSuccessful clinical outcomes can be achieved with various lumbar surgeries. ESs with endoscopic spinal surgery are on par with those found with open laminectomy and microsurgical decompression. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This article is a meta-analysis on the benefit overlap between lumbar endoscopy, microsurgical decompression, laminectomy, and lumbar decompression fusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2:

Indexed as

endoscopyherniated disclumbar surgerymeta-analysisminimally invasive surgeryspinal stenosis

Identifiers

PMID35444041
PMCPMC9930655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.