Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27875377›Full record

SynthesisThe Clinical journal of pain2017

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Refractory Angina Pectoris: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Xiaoxiao Pan, Hongguang Bao, Yanna Si, Chenjie Xu, Hao Chen, Xianzhong Gao, Xinyi Xie, Yajie Xu, Fan Sun, Lingqing Zeng

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Clinical journal of pain, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Contemporary and Emerging Therapies in the Management of Refractory Angina: A Clinical Review.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Cervical Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Review.Current pain and headache reports · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Is It Time to Redefine Neuropathic Pain?Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xiaoxiao Pan*Department of Clinical Medicine, Nanjing Medical University †Department of Anesthesiology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China.
Hongguang Bao
Yanna Si
Chenjie Xu
Hao Chen
Xianzhong Gao
Xinyi Xie
Yajie Xu
Fan Sun
Lingqing Zeng
Nanjing Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesParesthesia-free stimulation such as high frequency and burst have been demonstrated as effective therapies for neuropathic pain. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of conventional spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the treatment of refractory angina pectoris (RAP). MATERIALS AND

methodsRelevant randomized controlled trials that investigated SCS for patients with RAP were comprehensively searched in Medline, Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Five meta-analyses were performed examining the changes in Canadian Cardiovascular Society classes, exercise time, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores of pain, Seattle Angina Questionnaire, and nitroglycerin use in RAP patients after SCS therapy. We analyzed standardized mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome by Review Manager 5.0 and STATA 12.0.

resultsA total of 12 randomized controlled trials involving 476 RAP patients were identified. A trend of reduction in the angina frequency (MD=-9.03, 95% CI, -15.70 to -2.36) and nitroglycerin consumption (MD=-0.64, 95% CI, -0.84 to -0.45) could be observed in the SCS group. Compared with the control group, SCS showed benefit on increasing exercise time (MD=0.49, 95% CI, 0.13-0.85) and treatment satisfaction (MD=6.87, 95% CI, 2.07-11.66) with decreased VAS scores of pain (MD=-0.50, 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.20) and disease perception (MD=-8.34, 95% CI, -14.45 to -2.23). However, the result did not reach the significance level in terms of physical limitation (95% CI, -8.75 to 3.38; P=0.39) or angina stability (95% CI, -7.55 to 3.67; P=0.50). DISCUSSION: The current meta-analysis suggested that SCS was a potential alternative in the treatment of PAP patients. Further investigation for finding the appropriate intensity of stimulation is required before this treatment should be widely recommended and applied.

Indexed as

Spinal Cord StimulationAngina PectorisHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID27875377
PMCPMC5417578
OpenAlexW2555225649

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.