ReviewCurrent pain and headache reports2014
Patient selection for spinal cord stimulators: mental health perspective.
Review in Current pain and headache reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- State of the Art in Neuromodulation or Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- A Semi-structured Interview Predicts Spinal Cord Stimulator Implantation in Patients with Chronic Pain.Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2026Article
- Clinical Predictors of Pain Relief with 60-Day Peripheral Nerve Stimulation: A Multicenter Observational Study.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Evidence-based consensus guidelines on patient selection and trial stimulation for spinal cord stimulation therapy for chronic non-cancer pain.Regional anesthesia and pain medicine · 2023Review
- Short- and long-term effects of conventional spinal cord stimulation on chronic pain and health perceptions: A longitudinal controlled trial.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2022Article
- 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation: a retrospective analysis of real-world data from a community-based, interdisciplinary pain facility.Journal of pain research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research has shown that psychosocial factors can predict poor outcome for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for patients with chronic pain, substantiating the need for standardized assessment techniques to incorporate psychosocial factors in patient selection. Presurgical psychological assessment is often required for SCS. Best practices include clinical interviews by psychologists and use of standardized measures of psychosocial risk factors. Psychologists should assess mental health and social risk factors, as well as an individual's understanding of SCS and expectations for pain relief, while consulting with physicians to support a multidisciplinary based patient selection. In addition, psychologists take part in preparing patients who were initially deemed unsuitable for SCS by providing recommendations and potential access to clinical care addressing psychological issues in chronic pain. Barriers to presurgical psychological assessments include limited access to skilled psychologists and issues with feasibility and appropriateness of standardized measures, and further work is needed to improve standardized methodology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.