Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37076169›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2023

Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for sciatica: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Chang Liu, Giovanni E Ferreira, Christina Abdel Shaheed, Qiuzhe Chen, Ian A Harris, Christopher S Bailey, Wilco C Peul, Bart Koes, Chung-Wei Christine Lin

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
18.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Health-related quality of life in patients receiving medicinal cannabis: systematic review and meta-analysis of primary research findings 2015-2025.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Chang LiuSydney Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0597-6101
Giovanni E FerreiraSydney Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8534-195X
Christina Abdel ShaheedSydney Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1258-5125
Qiuzhe ChenSydney Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Ian A HarrisIngham Institute for Applied Medical Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0887-7627
Christopher S BaileyDepartment of Surgery, Western University, London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada.
Wilco C PeulNeurosurgical Center Holland, Leiden University Medical Center and Haaglanden MC and Haga Teaching Hospital, The Hague-Leiden, Netherlands.
Bart KoesDepartment of General Practice, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0450-9969
Chung-Wei Christine LinSydney Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6192-7238
The University of Sydney · AUErasmus MC · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NLUNSW Sydney · AUWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the effectiveness and safety of surgery compared with non-surgical treatment for sciatica.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to June 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials comparing any surgical treatment with non-surgical treatment, epidural steroid injections, or placebo or sham surgery, in people with sciatica of any duration due to lumbar disc herniation (diagnosed by radiological imaging). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data. Leg pain and disability were the primary outcomes. Adverse events, back pain, quality of life, and satisfaction with treatment were the secondary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). Data were pooled using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) framework. Follow-up times were into immediate term (≤six weeks), short term (>six weeks and ≤three months), medium term (>three and <12 months), and long term (at 12 months).

results24 trials were included, half of these investigated the effectiveness of discectomy compared with non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections (1711 participants). Very low to low certainty evidence showed that discectomy, compared with non-surgical treatment, reduced leg pain: the effect size was moderate at immediate term (mean difference -12.1 (95% confidence interval -23.6 to -0.5)) and short term (-11.7 (-18.6 to -4.7)), and small at medium term (-6.5 (-11.0 to -2.1)). Negligible effects were noted at long term (-2.3 (-4.5 to -0.2)). For disability, small, negligible, or no effects were found. A similar effect on leg pain was found when comparing discectomy with epidural steroid injections. For disability, a moderate effect was found at short term, but no effect was observed at medium and long term. The risk of any adverse events was similar between discectomy and non-surgical treatment (risk ratio 1.34 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.98)).

conclusionVery low to low certainty evidence suggests that discectomy was superior to non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections in reducing leg pain and disability in people with sciatica with a surgical indication, but the benefits declined over time. Discectomy might be an option for people with sciatica who feel that the rapid relief offered by discectomy outweighs the risks and costs associated with surgery. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021269997.

Indexed as

Intervertebral Disc DisplacementSciaticaBack PainHumansQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSteroidsSteroids

Identifiers

PMID37076169
PMCPMC10498296
OpenAlexW4366449345

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.