Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Comparison 1 Surgical versus non‐surgical treatment ‐ primary outcomes, Outcome 1 Improvement in clinical symptoms at three months.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Surgical versus non‐surgical treatment ‐ primary outcomes, Outcome 1 Improvement in clinical symptoms at three months.

Comparison 1 Surgical versus non‐surgical treatment ‐ primary outcomes, Outcome 2 Improvement in clinical symptoms at six months.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Surgical versus non‐surgical treatment ‐ primary outcomes, Outcome 2 Improvement in clinical symptoms at six months.

Comparison 2 Surgical versus non‐surgical treatment ‐ secondary outcomes, Outcome 1 Clinical improvement at one year of follow‐up.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Surgical versus non‐surgical treatment ‐ secondary outcomes, Outcome 1 Clinical improvement at one year of follow‐up.

Comparison 2 Surgical versus non‐surgical treatment ‐ secondary outcomes, Outcome 2 Clinical improvement without including its relevance.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Surgical versus non‐surgical treatment ‐ secondary outcomes, Outcome 2 Clinical improvement without including its relevance.

Comparison 2 Surgical versus non‐surgical treatment ‐ secondary outcomes, Outcome 3 Need for surgery or secondary surgery during follow‐up.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Surgical versus non‐surgical treatment ‐ secondary outcomes, Outcome 3 Need for surgery or secondary surgery during follow‐up.

Comparison 2 Surgical versus non‐surgical treatment ‐ secondary outcomes, Outcome 4 Clinical improvement at less than three months.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Surgical versus non‐surgical treatment ‐ secondary outcomes, Outcome 4 Clinical improvement at less than three months.

Comparison 2 Surgical versus non‐surgical treatment ‐ secondary outcomes, Outcome 5 Complications of surgery and medical treatment.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Surgical versus non‐surgical treatment ‐ secondary outcomes, Outcome 5 Complications of surgery and medical treatment.

Comparison 2 Surgical versus non‐surgical treatment ‐ secondary outcomes, Outcome 6 Improvement in neurophysiological parameters.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Surgical versus non‐surgical treatment ‐ secondary outcomes, Outcome 6 Improvement in neurophysiological parameters.

Table 1. Methodological quality of included studies

Study

Alloc. concealment

Diagnostic criteria

Baseline differences

Patient blinding

Observer blinding

Garland 1964

unclear

adequate

not reported

not attempted

not attempted

Gerritsen 2002

adequate

adequate

adequate

not attempted

inadequate

Hui 2005

adequate

adequate

adequate

not attempted

inadequate

Ly‐Pen 2005

adequate

adequate

adequate

not attempted

not attempted

Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Methodological quality of included studies
Comparison 1. Surgical versus non‐surgical treatment ‐ primary outcomes

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Improvement in clinical symptoms at three months Show forest plot

3

295

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.23 [1.04, 1.46]

2 Improvement in clinical symptoms at six months Show forest plot

2

245

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.19 [1.02, 1.39]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Surgical versus non‐surgical treatment ‐ primary outcomes
Comparison 2. Surgical versus non‐surgical treatment ‐ secondary outcomes

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Clinical improvement at one year of follow‐up Show forest plot

2

198

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.27 [1.05, 1.53]

2 Clinical improvement without including its relevance Show forest plot

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.43, 1.15]

2.1 Improvement in grip strength

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.43, 1.15]

3 Need for surgery or secondary surgery during follow‐up Show forest plot

2

198

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.04 [0.01, 0.17]

4 Clinical improvement at less than three months Show forest plot

1

176

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.64 [0.41, 0.98]

5 Complications of surgery and medical treatment Show forest plot

2

226

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.38 [1.08, 1.76]

6 Improvement in neurophysiological parameters Show forest plot

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.44 [1.05, 1.97]

6.1 Change in amplitude of sensory potential

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.44 [1.05, 1.97]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. Surgical versus non‐surgical treatment ‐ secondary outcomes