1992
DOI: 10.1007/bf00296769
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Calcitonin treatment in lumbar spinal stenosis: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, cross-over study with one-year follow-up

Abstract: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover study in 40 lumbar spinal stenosis patients with a 1-year follow-up showed that calcitonin had beneficial effects on the patients' symptoms without producing any notable side effects. Calcitonin had a clear analgesic effect. The mean of walking distance increased, but the crossover trend was not as good as the analgesic effect. Side effects such as erythema and nausea were usually mild and transient. Calcitonin therapy can be used as a conservative trea… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
34
1
1

Year Published

1996
1996
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 61 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
34
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Also, unexplained is the report of statistically significant differences with an improvement of 5 mm for the calcitonin and a deterioration of 11 mm for placebo (P = 0.03) on visual analog scale for 'back pain'. The results of our study in 2004 were in contrast to several previous trials in the literature reporting subcutaneous calcitonin as effective in treating symptomatic spinal stenosis [1,2,7,[9][10][11]. One potential explanation for this disparity is the formulation of calcitonin that we used.…”
contrasting
confidence: 76%
“…Also, unexplained is the report of statistically significant differences with an improvement of 5 mm for the calcitonin and a deterioration of 11 mm for placebo (P = 0.03) on visual analog scale for 'back pain'. The results of our study in 2004 were in contrast to several previous trials in the literature reporting subcutaneous calcitonin as effective in treating symptomatic spinal stenosis [1,2,7,[9][10][11]. One potential explanation for this disparity is the formulation of calcitonin that we used.…”
contrasting
confidence: 76%
“…Furthermore, at one year, none of the two groups experienced residual benefits. 25 In 2004, Podichetty et al 26 recruited 47 patients and compared a six-week regimen of intranasal calcitonin with placebo. At six weeks, no differences in pain, walking distance, walking time, and physical or emotional function were found between the …”
Section: Calcitoninmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…In 1992, Eskola et al 25 conducted a double-blind, crossover RCT on 39 patients suffering from LSS. The subjects initially received a subcutaneous injection of calcitonin or placebo every other day for four weeks.…”
Section: Calcitoninmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Cuckler et al reported a lumbar epidural approach without fluoroscopy. 4 Surprisingly, a second epidural was given for ethical reasons and not technical failures. In the only positive study evaluating calcitonin, a crossover design was used after a two-month washout period.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%