4.5 Review

Prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis in general and clinical populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL
卷 29, 期 9, 页码 2143-2163

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-020-06339-1

关键词

Lumbar spinal stenosis; Neurogenic claudication; Prevalence; MRI; Review; Meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To estimate the prevalence of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in adults, identified by clinical symptoms and/or radiological criteria. Methods Systematic review of the literature. Pooled prevalence estimates by care setting and clinical or radiological diagnostic criteria were calculated and plotted [PROSPERO ID: CRD42018109640]. Results In total, 41 papers reporting on 55 study samples were included. The overall risk of bias was considered high in two-thirds of the papers. The mean prevalence, based on a clinical diagnosis of LSS in the general population, was 11% (95% CI 4-18%), 25% (95% CI 19-32%) in patients from primary care, 29% (95% CI 22-36%) in patients from secondary care and 39% (95% CI 39-39%) in patients from mixed primary and secondary care. Evaluating the presence of LSS based on radiological diagnosis, the pooled prevalence was 11% (95% CI 5-18%) in the asymptomatic population, 38% (95% CI - 10 to 85%) in the general population, 15% (95% CI 13-18%) in patients from primary care, 32% (95% CI 22-41%) in patients from secondary care and 21% (95% CI 16-26%) in a mixed population from primary and secondary care. Conclusions The mean prevalence estimates based on clinical diagnoses vary between 11 and 39%, and the estimates based on radiological diagnoses similarly vary between 11 and 38%. The results are based on studies with high risk of bias, and the pooled prevalence estimates should therefore be interpreted with caution. With an growing elderly population, there is a need for future low risk-of-bias research clarifying clinical and radiological diagnostic criteria of lumbar spinal stenosis. Graphic abstract These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据