↓ Skip to main content

Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

132 tweeters
37 Facebook pages
2 Wikipedia pages
5 Google+ users


72 Dimensions

Readers on

362 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010264.pub2
Pubmed ID

Fabio Zaina, Christy Tomkins-Lane, Eugene Carragee, Stefano Negrini


Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a debilitating condition associated with degeneration of the spine with aging. To evaluate the effectiveness of different types of surgery compared with different types of non-surgical interventions in adults with symptomatic LSS. Primary outcomes included quality of life, disability, function and pain. Also, to consider complication rates and side effects, and to evaluate short-, intermediate- and long-term outcomes (six months, six months to two years, five years or longer). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases and two trials registries up to February 2015. We also screened reference lists and conference proceedings related to treatment of the spine. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgical versus non-operative treatments in participants with lumbar spinal stenosis confirmed by clinical and imaging findings. For data collection and analysis, we followed methods guidelines of the Cochrane Back and Neck Review Group (Furlan 2009) and those provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011). From the 12,966 citations screened, we assessed 26 full-text articles and included five RCTs (643 participants).Low-quality evidence from the meta-analysis performed on two trials using the Oswestry Disability Index (pain-related disability) to compare direct decompression with or without fusion versus multi-modal non-operative care showed no significant differences at six months (mean difference (MD) -3.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.12 to 2.80) and at one year (MD -6.18, 95% CI -15.03 to 2.66). At 24 months, significant differences favoured decompression (MD -4.43, 95% CI -7.91 to -0.96). Low-quality evidence from one small study revealed no difference in pain outcomes between decompression and usual conservative care (bracing and exercise) at three months (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% CI 0.22 to 8.59), four years (RR 7.50, 95% CI 1.00 to 56.48) and 10 years (RR 4.09, 95% CI 0.95 to 17.58).Low-quality evidence from one small study suggested no differences at six weeks in the Oswestry Disability Index for patients treated with minimally invasive mild decompression versus those treated with epidural steroid injections (MD 5.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 10.83; 38 participants). Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) results were better for epidural injection at six weeks (MD -0.60, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.28), and visual analogue scale (VAS) improvements were better in the mild decompression group (MD 2.40, 95% CI 1.92 to 2.88). At 12 weeks, many cross-overs prevented further analysis.Low-quality evidence from a single study including 191 participants favoured the interspinous spacer versus usual conservative treatment at six weeks, six months and one year for symptom severity and physical function.All remaining studies reported complications associated with surgery and conservative side effects of treatment: Two studies reported no major complications in the surgical group, and the other study reported complications in 10% and 24% of participants, including spinous process fracture, coronary ischaemia, respiratory distress, haematoma, stroke, risk of reoperation and death due to pulmonary oedema. We have very little confidence to conclude whether surgical treatment or a conservative approach is better for lumbar spinal stenosis, and we can provide no new recommendations to guide clinical practice. However, it should be noted that the rate of side effects ranged from 10% to 24% in surgical cases, and no side effects were reported for any conservative treatment. No clear benefits were observed with surgery versus non-surgical treatment. These findings suggest that clinicians should be very careful in informing patients about possible treatment options, especially given that conservative treatment options have resulted in no reported side effects. High-quality research is needed to compare surgical versus conservative care for individuals with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 132 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 362 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 355 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 74 20%
Researcher 46 13%
Student > Bachelor 45 12%
Other 33 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 28 8%
Other 77 21%
Unknown 59 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 143 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 51 14%
Psychology 15 4%
Neuroscience 15 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 3%
Other 51 14%
Unknown 77 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 101. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 May 2020.
All research outputs
of 16,022,651 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 345,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 202 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,022,651 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,358 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,256 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 202 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.