ArticleMedicine2020
Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic discectomy and microendoscopic discectomy in treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation: A protocol of cohort study.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It carries an expression of concern. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Thermosensitive Injectable Celecoxib-Loaded Chitosan Hydrogel for Repairing Postoperative Intervertebral Disc Defect.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Expression of concern
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite some researchers have compared the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic discectomy (PED) and microendoscopic discectomy (MD) for the lumbar disc herniation; however, they got conflicting outcomes in several variables. Therefore, our aim was to clarify whether PED produces less surgical trauma and better clinical results than MD.
methodsA single-center, retrospective cohort trial was conducted for the comparison of the safety and effectiveness between the MD and PED in the patients with lumbar disc herniation who received surgery from May 2016 to July 2018 in our hospital. The inclusion criteria for our investigation included:The follow-ups were performed 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after the surgery. Numeric Rating Scale, Short-form 36, and Oswestry Disability Index, as well as complications were evaluated in our study. The software of SPSS Version 22.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY) was applied to analyze all the statistical data. When P is less than .05, the difference is significant in statistics.
resultsThis protocol will provide a solid theoretical basis for exploring which technique is better in treatment of lumbar disc herniation.
trial registrationThis protocol was registered in Research Registry (researchregistry6005).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.