ArticleBrain & spine2024
A propensity-matched study of patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis opting for surgery versus not.
Article in Brain & spine, 2024. 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.
- Comparison of Biportal Endoscopic Technique and Conventional Unilateral Laminectomy for Bilateral Decompression (ULBD) for Multi-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in Elderly People.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Letter to the editor concerning "A propensity-matched study of patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis opting for surgery versus not" by Friis Pedersen et al.Brain & spine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Although most surgeons treating patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) believe that surgical treatment is superior to conservative measures, systematics reviews have concluded that no solid evidence support this. Research question: To compare change at 1-year of walking ability, health-related quality of life, leg and back pain in patients with symptomatic LSS referred to a spine surgery clinic who opted for surgery and those who did not. Material and methods: The study included 149 operated and 149 non-operated patients seen by spine surgeons and diagnosed with LSS. The non-operated patients were propensity-matched to a cohort retrieved from the Danish national spine registry. Matching was done on demographics and baseline outcome measures. The outcomes was walking improvement measured by item 4 of the Oswestry Disability Index, EQ-5D-3L, global assessment (GA) of back/leg pain, back and leg pain on the Visual Analogue Scale and the Short Form 36 transition item 2. Results: Less than half of the non-operated reached MCID on EQ-5D-3L, VAS pain legs or VAS pain back where 2/3 of the operated did. The largest difference was VAS back pain where 27.5% of the non-operated reached an MCID of 12 points compared to 71.8% in the operated group. Discussion and conclusion: Surgical treated patients improved better than non-operated on all outcome measures. However, further research is required to compare the effectiveness of surgical decompression with non-operative care for 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.