Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40924201›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2025

Consensus on clinical outcome measures for lumbar spinal stenosis: recommendations from the ISSLS lumbar spinal stenosis taskforce.

David B Anderson, Chelsia Cheung, Christy Lane, Markus Melloh, Jiri Dvorak, James M Van Gelder, Arnold Wong

Abstract readConsensus Statement
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in 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. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

David B AndersonSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. david.anderson1@sydney.edu.au.
Chelsia CheungHong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China.
Christy LaneDepartment of Health and Physical Education, Mount Royal University, Calgary, Canada.
Markus MellohSchool of Health Sciences, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Jiri DvorakSpine Unit, Schulthess Clinic Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
James M Van GelderNeurosurgical department, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Arnold WongHong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to determine through a Delphi process a list of outcomes measures for clinicians to use when assessing individuals with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (LSS).

methodsA three-phase Delphi process was conducted by the International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine (ISSLS) Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Taskforce, including two online surveys, two virtual meetings, and three in-person consensus meetings at the ISSLS annual conferences (2023-2025). Participants evaluated and ranked outcome measures for LSS, with final endorsement requiring > 66% agreement.

resultsAcross three Delphi phases, 91 international subject matter experts contributed to the evaluation of 138 outcome measures for LSS. Through iterative surveys and consensus meetings, nine outcome measures across six domains -pain, self-reported and objective function, balance, sleep, and recovery- achieved final endorsement by the ISSLS Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Taskforce, each with ≥ 89% agreement. The nine outcome measures were: (1) pain/discomfort in the leg/glute during standing/walking; (2) pain/discomfort in the back during standing/walking; (3) other symptoms during standing/walking; (4) Symptom Severity Scale (Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire); (5) Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); (6) observed walking distance; (7) single leg stance; (8) ODI sleep item; and (9) Global Perceived Recovery.

conclusionThe study provides a consensus list of recommended outcome measures for clinicians assessing individuals with a clinical diagnosis of LSS. Although not a definitive core outcome set for routine practice, the list provides practical guidance for selecting appropriate measures for specific assessment domains. We anticipate that the list will be updated as technological advances improve our capacity to assess domains of individuals with LSS.

Indexed as

Lumbar VertebraeOutcome Assessment, Health CareSpinal StenosisDelphi TechniqueHumans

Identifiers

PMID40924201

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.