Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39820737›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025

Single and multilevel decompression alone in patients with multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Fernando Cotrim Gomes, Anna Laura Lima Larcipretti, Ofonime Chantal Udoma-Udofa, Paulo Barrouin da Mata, Matheus de Andrade Bannach

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Fernando Cotrim GomesFaculty of Medicine, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Anna Laura Lima LarciprettiSchool of Medicine, Federal University of Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Ofonime Chantal Udoma-UdofaFaculty of Medicine, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Brazil.
Paulo Barrouin da MataFaculty of Medicine, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Matheus de Andrade BannachDepartment of Surgery, Neurology and Neurosurgery Unit, Federal University of Góias, Góias, 74690-900, Brazil. bannachmatheus@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a prevalent degenerative condition characterized by lower back pain, intermittent claudication, and radicular leg pain. It ranks as one of the primary indications of spinal surgery in patients aged 65 and older. In this study, we aim to compare single-level and multilevel approaches for decompression alone in LSS considering the incidence of complications, reduction in pain score, and rates of surgical revisions. A systematic search was conducted on PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for studies directly comparing single-level and multilevel decompression in patients with LSS. A total of 1,039 patients across five studies were analyzed, with 605 (58.2%) patients who underwent single-level decompression and 434 (41.8%) patients in the multilevel decompression cohort. Despite the multilevel decompression group showing a higher incidence of complications (14% vs. 7%), there was no statistically significant difference between groups (OR 0.60; 95%CI 0.34-1.08; p = 0.087; I

Indexed as

Decompression, SurgicalLumbar VertebraeSpinal StenosisHumansPostoperative ComplicationsTreatment OutcomeDecompressionLaminectomyLumbar spinal stenosisMeta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39820737

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.