The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Management of lumbar spinal stenosis
Open accessAbstract
Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) affects more than 200,000 adults in the United States, resulting in substantial pain and disability. It is the most common reason for spinal surgery in patients over 65 years. Lumbar spinal stenosis is a clinical syndrome of pain in the buttocks or lower extremities, with or without back pain. It is associated with reduced space available for the neural and vascular elements of the lumbar spine. The condition is often exacerbated by standing, walking, or lumbar extension and relieved by forward flexion, sitting, or recumbency. Clinical care and research into lumbar spinal stenosis is complicated by the heterogeneity of the condition, the lack of standard criteria for diagnosis and inclusion in studies, and high rates of anatomic stenosis on imaging studies in older people who are completely asymptomatic. The options for non-surgical management include drugs, physiotherapy, spinal injections, lifestyle modification, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation. However, few high quality randomized trials have looked at conservative management. A systematic review concluded that there is insufficient evidence to recommend any specific type of non-surgical treatment. Several different surgical procedures are used to treat patients who do not improve with non-operative therapies. Given that rapid deterioration is rare and that symptoms often wax and wane or gradually improve, surgery is almost always elective and considered only if sufficiently bothersome symptoms persist despite trials of less invasive interventions. Outcomes (leg pain and disability) seem to be better for surgery than for non-operative treatment, but the evidence is heterogeneous and often of limited quality.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis
Weinstein, J. N., Tosteson, T. D., Lurie, J. D., Tosteson, A. N. A., Blood, E., Hanscom, B., Herkowitz, H., Cammisa, F., Albert, T., Boden, S. D., et al. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0707136 · Cited by 1,229
Self-citationWeinstein, J. N., Tosteson, T. D., Lurie, J. D., Tosteson, A., Blood, E., Herkowitz, H., Cammisa, F., Albert, T., Boden, S. D., Hilibrand, A., et al. (2010) · Spine · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181e0f04d · Cited by 589
Self-citationTakahashi, N., Kikuchi, S.-I., Yabuki, S., Otani, K., & Konno, S.-I. (2014) · BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-259 · Cited by 23
Cited by
Gait disorders in adults and the elderly: A clinical guide
Pirker, W., & Katzenschlager, R. (2017) · Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · doi:10.1007/s00508-016-1096-4 · Cited by 664
Diagnosis and Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Review
Katz, J. N., Zimmerman, Z. E., Mass, H., & Makhni, M. C. (2022) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2022.5921 · Cited by 562
Metadata
- Authors
- Lurie, J., & Tomkins-Lane, C.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2016-01-04
- Volume
- 352
- Pages
- h6234
- ISSN
- 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2215609377
- Cited by
- 569
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 28.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Management of lumbar spinal stenosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.h6234
- The paper
- Lurie, J., & Tomkins-Lane, C. (2016). Management of lumbar spinal stenosis. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h6234
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.