ArticleThe American journal of case reports2018
Chronic Pain Rehabilitation for Upper Extremity Pain Following Stimulator Removal.
Article in The American journal of case reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Both spinal cord stimulators (SCS) and interdisciplinary chronic pain rehabilitation program (CPRP) are evidence-based treatments for chronic pain but differ on treatment foci. SCS focuses on decreasing the subjective pain experience as a means of improving function and quality of life. CPRP focuses on addressing the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral factors associated with chronic pain to improve function. Due to experimental constraints, these 2 treatment options are difficult to compare; however, this case report offers a unique opportunity to examine outcomes for both interventions in a sequential manner for changes in pain, function, and mood. CASE REPORT This single case study examined the separate and sequential outcomes of SCS and CPRP in a 26-year-old patient with a work-related injury resulting in chronic upper extremity pain. This patient was treated within an interdisciplinary CPRP following failure and removal of an SCS. Outcomes were measured by psychological assessments and return-to-work through a 6-month post-CPRP follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Pain intensity decreased following SCS placement and CPRP, while pain-related distress, pain interference, and overall affect improved only after CPRP, with sustained improvements at 6-month follow-up. Patient evidenced improvement following treatment with SCS and CPRP. SCS resulted in improvement in subjective pain and modest improved self-reported activity. CPRP demonstrated marked improvement in pain, self-reported function, and mood with patient eventually returning to work and maintaining most of these gains 6-months after completing CPRP treatment.
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.