SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION vs INTERSPINOUS SPACERS: Reoperation
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION leads to lower reoperations Number of patients requiring a revision surgery compared with INTERSPINOUS SPACERS (high certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION vs INTERSPINOUS SPACERS Reoperations Number of patients requiring a revision surgery · patients with lumbar spinal stenosis SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION leads to lower reoperations Number of patients requiring a revision surgery compared with INTERSPINOUS SPACERS (high certainty). Surgical options for lumbar spinal stenosis (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Risk ratio 0.25 [0.14, 0.47] | 3 studies · 326 participants | High |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Surgical options for lumbar spinal stenosis 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.