Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30042314›Full record

ReviewBrain sciences2018

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain: Current Trends and Future Applications.

Ivano Dones, Vincenzo Levi

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
13.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT05373654 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Observational, Prospective, Monocentric Study, Assessing the Use of Rechargeable Spinal Cord Stimulators for the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain. Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation Protocol

TypeinterventionalSponsorElsanRan2023 to 2023Enrolled50ConditionsNeuropathic PainArmsF-SUS Questionnaire, Interview (only for dissatisfied patients)
NCT07743905 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Virtual Pain Neuroscience Education for Patients Undergoing Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Pilot Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of ArkansasRan2026 to 2028Enrolled50ConditionsChronic Pain, Chronic Pain Due to Injury, Failed Back Syndrome, Persistent Spinal Pain SyndromeArmsSCS-PNE intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. 14. Discogenic Low Back Pain.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2025
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ivano DonesNeurosurgery Department, Functional Neurosurgery, Unit for the Surgical Treatment of Pain and Spasticity, Fondazione Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, 20131 Milan, Italy. ivanodones@gmail.com.
Vincenzo LeviNeurosurgery Department, Functional Neurosurgery, Unit for the Surgical Treatment of Pain and Spasticity, Fondazione Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, 20131 Milan, Italy. vincenzo.levi@unimi.it.ORCID 0000-0003-2713-6357
Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The origin and the neural pathways involved in chronic neuropathic pain are still not extensively understood. For this reason, despite the wide variety of pain medications available on the market, neuropathic pain is challenging to treat. The present therapeutic alternative considered as the gold standard for many kinds of chronic neuropathic pain is epidural spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Despite its proved efficacy, the favourable cost-effectiveness when compared to the long-term use of poorly effective drugs and the expanding array of indications and technical improvements, SCS is still worldwide largely neglected by general practitioners, neurologists, neurosurgeons and pain therapists, often bringing to a large delay in considering as a therapeutic option for patients affected by neuropathic chronic pain. The present state of the art of SCS in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain is here overviewed and speculations on whether to use a trial period or direct implant, to choose between percutaneous leads or paddle electrodes and on the pros and cons of the different patterns of stimulation presently available on the market (tonic stim, high-frequency stim and burst stim) are described.

Indexed as

neuromodulationneuropathic painspinal cord stimulation (SCS)

Identifiers

PMID30042314
PMCPMC6119923
OpenAlexW2883204863

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.