MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414569889 · doi:10.1016/j.bas.2025.105619

Indications for surgery versus conservative treatment in the management of lumbar disc herniations: A systematic review

2025· review· en· W4414569889 on OpenAlex
Santhosh G. Thavarajasingam, Ahmed Salih, Aksaan Arif, Madhur Varadpande, Pratheeshan Sabeshan, Hariharan Subbiah Ponniah, Sreeraag Kanakala, Srikar R. Namireddy, Daniele Ramsay, Ahkash Thavarajasingam, Daniel Scurtu, Dragan Janković, Andreas Krämer, Florian Ringel

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain and Spine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConservative treatmentConservative managementLumbarMEDLINESystematic review

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a leading cause of radiculopathy and low back pain, contributing significantly to global disability. Management strategies include conservative and surgical treatments, but clinical decision-making lacks standardization, particularly in surgical indications, timing, and criteria for transitioning from conservative management. Research question: What are the surgical indications, criteria for transitioning from conservative to surgical management in LDH, and what role do motor deficits play? Material and methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search across major databases identified 20 studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and RoB 1 tools. A qualitative synthesis was conducted, and the Index of Qualitative Variation (IQV) quantified variability in indications. Results: Among the studies that reported specific indications, imaging-confirmed nerve root compression (reported in 18/20 studies) and severe/refractory pain (reported in 17/20 studies) were the most consistent indications, while thresholds for sensory deficits (reported in 8/20 studies) varied widely. Early surgery (48 h-6 weeks) was associated with superior recovery, particularly for mild/moderate motor deficits graded ≤ MRC 3/4, achieving >90 % recovery rates. Delayed surgery (>6 weeks) resulted in prolonged symptoms and poorer outcomes, especially in severe cases. Transition criteria included a patient-specific combination of failure of conservative therapy (n = 12) after a most frequently 4-6-week trial, neurological progression, and worsening imaging findings. Significant heterogeneity was observed in thresholds for motor and sensory deficits, with high IQV scores for definitions of conservative treatment failure (IQV = 0.96) and motor deficit (IQV = 0.96). Discussion and conclusion: Significant heterogeneity in surgical indications, timing, and decision-making highlights the urgent need for standardized, evidence-based guidelines to optimize clinical decisions and improve outcomes in LDH management.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it