ArticlePain medicine (Malden, Mass.)2026
Comparing low and high recovery expectations among those with lumbar spinal stenosis: a network analysis.
Article in Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2026. 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.
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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to (1) compare networks of factors for patients with low and high recovery expectations in individuals with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) using biopsychosocial measures and duration of symptoms and (2) identify the most influential factors within each group.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study using baseline data from 598 patients with LSS. Participants were recruited through Duke University and the University of Washington spine clinics between 2021 and 2024. Recovery expectations were assessed using a 0 (lowest) to 10 (highest) numerical rating scale. We stratified participants into low and high expectation groups. Network analysis was used to assess relationships among factors for each group. Networks included chronicity and PROMIS-29 + 2 Profile. Partial correlations, centralities, network comparison measures, and network stabilities were calculated.
resultsThere were 226 participants with low and 108 with high recovery expectations. The 2 networks did not have significant structural differences, and strength centralities were stable. Chronicity was not significantly associated with other factors in both networks. Pain Interference and Fatigue strength centralities show greater importance in both networks. Anxiety had significantly higher strength in the low expectation group, suggesting greater relevance for individuals with low expectations.
conclusionPain Interference and Fatigue were influential for both groups, while Anxiety was more influential for those with low expectations. Future research and patient management should consider the influence of anxiety for those with low recovery expectations and pain interference and fatigue for all individuals with LSS on other associated factors.
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.