ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Applicability of randomized controlled trial evidence on surgery for lumbar disc herniations to clinical reality: a comparison with the nationwide FinSpine registry.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThe evidence of effectiveness of operative treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is based on findings from RCTs published during the last couple of decades. The applicability of these findings to clinical practise has not previously been evaluated by comparison with nationwide registry data. Our purpose was to assess the clinical homogeneity of the randomised controlled trials, to evaluate the applicability of the findings to the clinical reality utilizing FinSpine registry data and to propose ways to improve the applicability in the future.
methodsA systematic literature search was undertaken to find the RCTs. The benchmarking method compatible with the CONSORT statement was used to document and compare the characteristics of the RCTs and FinSpine registry population.
resultsSix RCTs comparing operative treatment of LDH to different methods of conservative treatment showed heterogeneity of patients' clinical characteristics in trial protocols and in actual experiments and a poor adherence to intervention groups. Patient groups were not representative of the catchment area in any of the RCTs. The completeness of documentation of clinically relevant characteristics was limited in all of the RCTs. Despite the deficiencies, the RCT results on operative treatment were comparable with FinSpine registry results.
conclusionsThe clinical heterogeneity of the RCTs, non-representative patient populations, incomplete reporting of patient characteristics and poor adherence to treatment groups limit generalizability and applicability of the existing RCTs' results. Our findings mark a need for future pragmatic RCTs as well as clinical registry-based studies to improve the evidence for decision making in real-life settings.
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.