SynthesisScientific reports2025
Minimally invasive tubular decompression versus traditional open surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Tubular vs. Open Laminectomy for Pure Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Markov State-Transition Analysis.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Interlaminar versus sublaminar lumbar decompression: a retrospective study on patient satisfaction as measured by PROMIS outcomes.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Top 100 most-cited systematic reviews on robotic-assisted orthopaedic surgery: trends, hotspots, and key contributors.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive (MI) tubular decompression seeks to reduce soft‑tissue trauma compared with open laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). We performed a PRISMA‑compliant systematic review and meta‑analysis of comparative studies (2015-April 2025) identified in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL. Adults with symptomatic degenerative LSS undergoing MI tubular decompression or open laminectomy were included. Evaluated outcomes included surgical parameters (e.g., overall complications; dural tears, surgical site infections, reoperation), perioperative and postoperative complications, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and hospital length of stay (LOS). Heterogeneity was measured using I
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.