ArticleJournal of pain research2023
A Protocol for a Single-Centered, Pragmatic, Randomized, Controlled, Parallel Trial Comparing Comprehensive Nonsurgical Therapy Options for Individuals with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a long-term degenerative disease. Considering the risks and advantages of the patient's age range and the characteristics of the condition, non-surgical treatment is recommended. To determine the best first-line non-surgical therapy for LSS, few studies have examined different non-surgical therapies. Therefore, the main objective of this study is to determine whether the selection of comprehensive Chinese medicine (CM) treatment for LSS is more successful than non-surgical conservative treatment. Patients and Methods: In this two-armed, parallel, single-centered, pragmatic randomized controlled study, 94 LSS participants will be randomized to receive 24 sessions of comprehensive CM therapy or conservative treatment for 3 months, with follow-up assessments at 6, 9, 12, and 15 months. The primary outcome will be based on the success rate of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) for the most clinical important difference (MCID) at 3 and 15 months. Secondary outcomes include Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores for back and leg pain, ZCQ scores, Oswestry Disability Index scores for lumbar dysfunction, and Short-Form 12 scores for health-related quality of life at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months. Adverse events and incidences of surgery will be reported anytime during the trial and follow-up. Conclusion: This protocol examines the comparative efficacy of comprehensive CM therapy compared with conventional care through a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to present data to facilitate clinical or policy decision-making. The outcomes will make it easier to decide which patient-centered treatments to prioritize for LSS.
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.