Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35676677›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022

Consensus on a standardised treatment pathway algorithm for lumbar spinal stenosis: an international Delphi study.

Christine Comer, Carlo Ammendolia, Michele C Battié, André Bussières, Jeremy Fairbank, Andrew Haig, Markus Melloh, Anthony Redmond, Michael J Schneider, Christopher J Standaert and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

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 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Consensus on clinical outcome measures for lumbar spinal stenosis: recommendations from the ISSLS lumbar spinal stenosis taskforce.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

13 authors at 12 institutions in 7 countries.

Christine ComerLeeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust, Leeds, UK. c.comer@leeds.ac.uk.
Carlo AmmendoliaFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto and Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Michele C BattiéFaculty of Health Sciences and Western's Bone & Joint Institute, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
André BussièresSchool of Physical Medicine & Occupational Therapy, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Jeremy FairbankNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Andrew HaigDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Markus MellohFaculty of Health, Te Herenga Waka - Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
Anthony RedmondLeeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Michael J SchneiderDepartment of Physical Therapy, Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Christopher J StandaertDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Christy Tomkins-LaneDepartment of Health and Physical Education, Mount Royal University, Calgary, Canada.
Esther WilliamsonNuffield Department of Orthopaedics Rheumatology & Musculoskeletal Sciences, Centre for Rehabilitation Research, University of Oxford, Windmill Road, Oxford, UK.
Arnold Yl WongDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong SAR, China.
University of Pittsburgh · USHong Kong Polytechnic University · HKLeeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust · GBMount Royal University · CANIHR Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit · GBNuffield Orthopaedic Centre · GBUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières · CAUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Toronto · CAVictoria University of Wellington · NZWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common degenerative spinal condition in older adults associated with disability, diminished quality of life, and substantial healthcare costs. Individual symptoms and needs vary. With sparse and sometimes inconsistent evidence to guide clinical decision-making, variable clinical care may lead to unsatisfactory patient outcomes and inefficient use of healthcare resources.

methodsA three-phase modified Delphi study comprising four consensus rounds was conducted on behalf of the International Taskforce for the Diagnosis and Management of LSS to develop a treatment algorithm based on multi-professional international expert consensus. Participants with expertise in the assessment and management of people with LSS were invited using an international distribution process used for two previous Delphi studies led by the Taskforce. Separate treatment pathways for patients with different symptom types and severity were developed and incorporated into a proposed treatment algorithm through consensus rounds 1 to 3. Agreement with the proposed algorithm was evaluated in the final consensus round.

resultsThe final algorithm combines stratified and stepped approaches. When indicated, immediate investigation and surgery is advocated. Otherwise, a stepped approach is suggested when self-directed care is unsatisfactory. This starts with tailored rehabilitation, then more complex multidisciplinary care, investigations and surgery options if needed. Treatment options in each step depend on clinical phenotype and symptom severity. Treatment response guides pathway entrance and exit points. Of 397 study participants, 86% rated their agreement ≥ 4 for the proposed algorithm on a 0-6 scale, of which 22% completely agreed. Only 7% disagreed. Over 70% of participants felt that the algorithm would be useful for clinicians in public healthcare (both primary care and specialist settings) and in private healthcare settings, and that a simplified version would help patients in shared decision-making.

conclusionsInternational and multi-professional agreement was achieved for a proposed LSS treatment algorithm developed through expert consensus. The algorithm advocates different pathway options depending on clinical indications. It is not intended as a treatment protocol and will require evaluation against current care for clinical and cost-effectiveness. It may, however, serve as a clinical guide until evidence is sufficient to inform a fully stratified care model.

Indexed as

Spinal StenosisAgedAlgorithmsDelphi TechniqueHumansQuality of LifeAlgorithmClinical practice guidelineConsensusDelphi techniqueExpertsLumbar spinal stenosis

Identifiers

PMID35676677
PMCPMC9175311
OpenAlexW4281918816

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.