Part Iii.1

[Asdrubal Dagreat]

Thesite is secure.

The ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Summary of background data: No randomized trials and few nonexperimental studies have compared surgical and nonsurgical treatment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. The authors' goal was to assess 1-year outcomes of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis treated surgically or nonsurgically.

Methods: Eligible, consenting patients participated in baseline interviews and were then mailed follow-up questionnaires at 3, 6, and 12 months. Clinical data were obtained from a physician questionnaire. Outcomes included patient-reported symptoms of leg and back pain, functional status, disability, and satisfaction with care.

Results: One hundred forty-eight patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were enrolled, of whom 81 were treated surgically and 67 treated nonsurgically. On average, patients in the surgical group had more severe imaging findings and symptoms and worse functional status than patients in the nonsurgical group at entry. Few patients with mild symptoms were treated surgically, and few patients with severe symptoms were treated nonsurgically. However, of the patients with moderate symptoms, a similar percent were treated surgically or nonsurgically. One year after study entry, 28% of nonsurgically and 55% of surgically treated patients reported definite improvement in their predominant symptoms (P = 0.003). For patients with moderate symptoms, outcomes for surgically treated patients were also improved compared with those of nonsurgically treated patients. Surgical treatment remained a significant determinant of 1-year outcome, even after adjustment for differences between treatment groups at entry (P = 0.05). The maximal benefit of surgery was observed by the time of the first follow-up evaluation, which was at 3 months. Although few nonsurgically treated patients experienced a worsening of their condition, there was little improvement in symptoms and functional status compared with study entry.

Conclusions: At a 1-year evaluation of patient-reported outcomes, patients with severe lumbar spinal stenosis who were treated surgically had greater improvement than patients treated nonsurgically. Comparisons of outcomes by treatment received must be made cautiously because of differences in baseline characteristics. A determination of whether the outcomes observed persist requires long-term follow-up.

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources does not endorse, make claims or promises, or provide warranties of accuracy, of any websites or related materials provided outside of this website. The department bears no responsibility for any damages arising from using these websites or related materials.

The content of the Department's website originates in English. If there are differences between the English content and its translation, the English content is always the most accurate. By selecting a language from the Google Translate menu, the user accepts the legal implications of any misinterpretations or differences in the translation.

For assistance, please contact the Department of Natural Resources at 573-751-3443 or by email at dnrweb...@dnr.mo.gov. If you are having accessibility or usability issues with our website, please fill out an Accessibility Issue form.

Each proposing organization that is new to NSF or has not had an active NSF assistance award within the previous five years should be prepared to submit basic organization and management information and certifications, when requested, to the applicable award-making division within the Office of Budget, Finance & Award Management (BFA). The requisite information is described in the NSF Prospective New Awardee Guide. The information contained in this Guide will assist the organization in preparing documents which NSF requires to conduct administrative and financial reviews of the organization. This Guide also serves as a means of highlighting the accountability requirements associated with Federal awards.

Proposers should be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Building the Future: Investing in Discovery and Innovation - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2018 2022. These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.

One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at NSF grantee organizations. These organizations recruit, train, and prepare a diverse science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nations most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong STEM workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.

NSF will not tolerate research misconduct in proposing or performing research funded by NSF, reviewing research proposals submitted to NSF, or in reporting research results funded by NSF. For additional information, see Chapters I.D.3, IX.B, and XII.C.

NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, organizations, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

Unless specified in a program solicitation, all proposals must comply with the proposal preparation instructions contained in Part I of the PAPPG or the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide. Conformance will be strictly enforced unless a written deviation authorization is received in advance of proposal submission from the cognizant NSF Assistant Director/Office Head or designee. Such deviation authorizations must be uploaded as a single-copy document and include the name, date, and title of the NSF official, and the nature of the deviation authorized. (See section C.1 below for additional information.)

NSF is dedicated to fostering and maintaining a diverse and inclusive digital environment that eliminates barriers and ensures our programs, systems, and services are accessible to everyone as required by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended in 2017. Individuals with disabilities who need reasonable accommodations as part of the proposal process must contact the NSF Office of Diversity and Inclusion's (ODI) Disability Program Manager (DPM) at rare...@nsf.gov at least 30 days prior to the proposal deadline date. Individuals with disabilities who need accessibility accommodations to access NSF proposal submission and award management systems, websites and other digital content must contact the NSF Section 508 Compliance Officer at least 30 days prior to the proposal deadline date. For reasonable accommodation requests, NSF may request medical documentation signed and dated by the proposer's physician that describes a) the nature, severity, and duration of the impairment; b) the activities the impairment limits; and c) why and how the particular reasonable accommodation requested will assist the proposer.

The information provided in support of a reasonable accommodation request is confidential and available only to designated agency staff that are responsible for providing and/or coordinating accommodation services. Decisions on reasonable accommodations are made by the DPM, in concert with applicable agency officials and based on the information provided. It is important to note that the desired request may not always be the accommodation that is ultimately provided. NSF is not required to provide accommodations that impose an "undue hardship" on the operation of the organization or that fundamentally alter the nature of its programs or activities. Requests for reasonable or accessibility accommodations may not include personal use items or extensions to proposal deadline dates. All proposals must be received by the deadline date specified in the NSF funding opportunity.

Prior to submission, it is strongly recommended that proposers conduct an administrative review to ensure that proposals comply with the guidelines established in Part I of the PAPPG or the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide. The Proposal Preparation Checklist (Exhibit II-1) may be used to assist in this review. The checklist is not intended to be an all-inclusive repetition of the required proposal contents and associated proposal preparation guidelines. It is, however, meant to highlight certain critical items so they will not be overlooked when the proposal is prepared.

The requested proposal information noted above will be used to determine the applicable proposal preparation requirements that must be followed. Proposers are strongly advised to review the applicable sections of Part I of the PAPPG pertinent to the type of proposal being developed prior to submission.

Proposers are advised that FastLane does not automatically paginate a proposal. Each section of the proposal that is uploaded as a file must be individually paginated prior to being uploaded to FastLane.

For proposals submitted via Research.gov, the system will automatically paginate a proposal. Each section of the proposal that is uploaded as a file should leave out page numbering unless otherwise directed within Research.gov.

3a8082e126