Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41366694›Full record

Trial reportChiropractic & manual therapies2025

Which lumbar spinal stenosis patients will improve with nonsurgical treatment? A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

Eric J Roseen, Clair N Smith, Asifa Rahim, Conor Deal, Ryan Fischer, Natalia E Morone, Andrew Flack, Charles Penza, Pradeep Suri, Paul E Dougherty and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Chiropractic & manual therapies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01943435 (A Comparison of Non-Surgical Treatment Methods for Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT01943435 nacompletednot on this map

A Comparison of Non-Surgical Treatment Methods for Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

TypeinterventionalSponsorMichael Schneider, DC, PhDRan2013 to 2016Enrolled259ConditionsLumbar Spinal StenosisArmsNSAIDs, adjunctive analgesics, adjunctive anti-depressants, Lumbar epidural injection, Joint Mobilizations (spine, sacroiliac, hip)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Eric J RoseenSection of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. eric.roseen@bmc.org.
Clair N SmithSHRS Data Center, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Asifa RahimSection of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Conor DealSection of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Ryan FischerSection of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Natalia E MoroneSection of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Andrew FlackOrlando VA Medical Center, Orlando, FL, USA.
Charles PenzaOrlando VA Medical Center, Orlando, FL, USA.
Pradeep SuriClinical Learning, Evidence, and Research Center, University of Washington and Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Paul E DoughertyCenter for Integrated Healthcare, Syracuse VA Medical Center, Syracuse, NY, USA.
Debra K WeinerDivision of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine; Department of Psychiatry; Department of Anesthesiology; Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Michael J SchneiderDoctor of Chiropractic Program, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Funding

Optimizing Impact of Manual Therapy and Exercise on Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Neurogenic Claudication: A Multi-Site Feasibility StudyR01AT012534 · NCCIH · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI DOUGHERTY, PAUL E, WEINER, DEBRA KAYE · 2023 to 2025
$1.5M
Improving Access to Chiropractic Care for Low Back Pain in Underserved Primary Care Settings: Development and Evaluation of a Multi-level Implementation StrategyK23AT010487 · NCCIH · BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER · PI ROSEEN, ERIC J · 2019 to 2023
$839k
Mentoring and Patient-Oriented Research in Mind and Body PracticesK24AT011561 · NCCIH · BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER · PI MORONE, NATALIA E. · 2021 to 2025
$607k
NCCIH NIH HHS K23 AT010487NCCIH NIH HHS K23AT010487NCCIH NIH HHS K24 AT011561NCCIH NIH HHS R01 AT012534Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute CER-1410-25056
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLumbar 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. PURPOSE: To identify patient characteristics associated with larger improvements or larger treatment effects among adults receiving nonsurgical LSS interventions.

designSecondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

settingOutpatient research clinics. SUBJECTS: 216 older adults with symptomatic LSS.

methodsParticipants, 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.

resultsAt 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 larger improvements observed among younger, non-white, non-smoking participants, and those with worse baseline LSS or back-related symptoms/impairment. Overall improvement on the SPWT was 205 m with larger improvements observed among younger participants, those with higher baseline physical activity levels and participants without knee osteoarthritis. For SSSQ, the treatment effect was larger among adults aged < 70 versus older adults (MTE vs. GE/MC; mean difference [MD] = - 4.06, 95% CI = - 6.29 to - 1.83 vs. MD = - 0.47. 95% CI = - 2.63 to 1.69, respectively; p-for-interaction = 0.02). For walking capacity, the treatment effect was larger among adults with hip osteoarthritis compared to those without (MTE vs. GE/MC; MD = 500 m, 95% CI = 71 to 929, vs MD = 13 m, 95% CI = - 120 to 147, respectively; p-for-interaction = 0.007).

conclusionsIn a sample receiving nonsurgical treatments for LSS, we identified patient-level characteristics associated with larger improvements and/or treatment effects. If confirmed in larger randomized controlled trials, these findings may guide clinical decision-making to enhance clinical outcomes. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01943435.

Indexed as

Exercise TherapyLumbar VertebraeSpinal StenosisAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeWalkingChronic painGroup exerciseNonpharmacologic treatmentOlder adultsPrimary careSpinal stenosisWalking

Identifiers

PMID41366694
PMCPMC12690792

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.