Summary of findings: split‐spinous process laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy: Disability Long‐term (≥ 12 months) Disability scores converted to 0 to 100 scale to allow for comparison of different disability scales (RMDQ, ODI, JOA)
Summary of findings: split‐spinous process laminotomy showed no clear difference in standardised Disability Index (0 to 100) Split‐spinous process… compared with conventional laminectomy (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings: split‐spinous process laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy Standardised Disability Index (0 to 100) Split‐spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy Disability scores converted to 0 to 100 scale to allow for comparison of different disability scales (RDQ, ODI, JOA) · patients with lumbar stenosis Summary of findings: split‐spinous process laminotomy showed no clear difference in standardised Disability Index (0 to 100) Split‐spinous process… compared with conventional laminectomy (low certainty). Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 139 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis 2015 · 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.