ArticleIntegrative medicine research2026
Nonsurgical interventions for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Integrative medicine research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Background: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with neurogenic claudication is a common cause of chronic pain and disability, but the comparative efficacy of nonsurgical interventions remains uncertain. This network meta-analysis evaluated and compared these interventions. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating nonsurgical interventions for LSS with neurogenic claudication. The primary outcome was short-term pain, defined as change in pain intensity from baseline to immediately after treatment. Secondary outcomes included long-term pain (≥6 months after randomization), short- and long-term function, short- and long-term walking distance assessed by walking tests, and short-term response rate. Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses were performed, and results were reported as mean differences (MDs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Results: Thirty-five RCTs involving 3147 participants were included. Low-certainty evidence indicated that, compared with placebo, acupuncture was associated with clinically important short-term improvements in pain (MD -10.02, 95% CrI -18.49 to -0.23) and function (MD -14.39, 95% CrI -25.26 to -3.69). Pairwise meta-analysis also suggested that acupuncture was associated with clinically important long-term pain reduction and statistically significant improvement in long-term function versus placebo. No other interventions showed clear benefits over placebo for pain or function. No intervention showed clear improvement in walking distance versus placebo or other interventions in the short or long term. All estimates were associated with substantial uncertainty. Conclusion: The evidence was characterized by substantial uncertainty, with certainty ranging from low to very low. Although acupuncture showed potential benefit, the findings remain inconclusive and highlight the need for rigorously designed, high-quality RCTs. Protocol registration: CRD42025649922.
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.