Which lumbar spinal stenosis patients will improve with nonsurgical treatment? A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial
Abstract
Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) can be disabling and is a leading reason for spinal surgery in older adults. While nonsurgical treatments are recommended as first-line treatment, it remains unclear which patients will benefit most. To identify patient characteristics associated with larger improvements or larger treatment effects among adults receiving nonsurgical LSS interventions. Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Outpatient research clinics. 216 older adults with symptomatic LSS. Participants, recruited from November 2013 to June 2016, were randomized to receive: (1) manual therapy with an individualized exercise program (MTE); (2) a group exercise (GE) program; or (3) medical care (MC). We evaluated the association of baseline characteristics with 2-month change in primary outcomes: symptoms and function on the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire (SSSQ); and walking capacity in meters (m) on the self-paced walking test (SPWT). Baseline characteristics included sociodemographic and clinical variables. To explore heterogeneity of treatment effects, we evaluated unadjusted stratified estimates when comparing MTE to GE/MC. Additionally, we included an interaction term in models to test for statistical interaction. At baseline, participants (mean age = 72, 54% female, 23% non-white) had moderate LSS-related symptoms/impairment (mean SSSQ score = 31.3) and limited walking capacity on SPWT (mean = 451 m). The overall improvement on SSSQ was 2.5 points with…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 216 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Global, regional, and national burden of hepatitis B, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019
- A meta‐analysis of anal cancer incidence by risk group: Toward a unified anal cancer risk scale
- Global fertility in 204 countries and territories, 1950–2021, with forecasts to 2100: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021
- Exercise interventions in Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- Prognostic Significance of Carbonic Anhydrase IX Expression in Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis
- Glucocorticoid Resistance: Is It a Requisite for Increased Cytokine Production in Depression? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.