. 2016 Jul 14;1(7):267–274. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.000030

Table 3.

Surgical versus conservative randomised controlled trials (RCTs)

Author	Journal	Patients (n)	With/without spondylolisthesis	Measurement tool	Follow-up (years)	Results	Risk bias
Atlas (Maine Lumbar Study Group)³²	Spine, 2005	148	Not specified	Bothersomeness scale for leg/back pain and weakness. SF-36, Modified Roland scale.	8-10	Better leg pain relief and back-related functional status in surgically-treated.	Non-random height rate loss follow-up. Various levels of decompression.
Amundsen²⁸	Spine, 2000	100	Not specified	Intensity of pain (light/moderate/severe). Patients reported results after surgery (worse/unchanged/fair/excellent). Daily activity. Neurological status. Walking distance.	4-10	Most favourable surgically-treated results.	Only 31 randomised lost follow-up.
Malmivaara²⁹	Spine, 2007	94	Both	ODI, VAS leg/back.Walking ability.	2	Better improvement for surgical group for leg/back pain and disability.	Crossover.
Weinstein et al (SPORT)³⁰	N Engl J Med, 2008	365	Without spondylolisthesis	ODI, SF-36.	4	Better surgical results. As treated analysis.	Crossover.
Kovacs et al³³	Spine, 2011	Review 5 RCTs	Both	ODI, SF-36.VAS leg/back.Walking ability.	4	Surgery more effective than conservative. treatment in patients with neurogenic claudication.	Heterogeneous population and interventions.