Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31265205›Full record

Trial reportNeuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society2020

Outcomes of a Multicenter, Prospective, Crossover, Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating Subperception Spinal Cord Stimulation at ≤1.2 kHz in Previously Implanted Subjects.

James North, Eric Loudermilk, Albert Lee, Harsh Sachdeva, Demetrios Kaiafas, Edward Washabaugh, Samir Sheth, James Scowcroft, Nagy Mekhail, Benjamin Lampert and 13 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02314000 (WHISPER - A Randomized Controlled Study to Evaluate the Effectiveness of the Precision Spinal Cord Stimulator System at Sub-Perception Amplitude), which is not on this map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT02314000 nacompletednot on this map

WHISPER - A Randomized Controlled Study to Evaluate the Effectiveness of the Precision Spinal Cord Stimulator System at Sub-Perception Amplitude

TypeinterventionalSponsorBoston Scientific CorporationRan2014 to 2018Enrolled229ConditionsChronic PainArmsPrecision or Precision Spectra Spinal Cord Stimulator System
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Closed-loop SCS and sensing: now and in the future.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Spinal cord stimulation for low back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

23 authors.

James NorthCarolinas Pain Institute and Center for Clinical Research, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Eric LoudermilkPiedmont Comprehensive Pain Management Group, Greenville, SC, USA.
Albert LeeTallahassee Neurological Clinic, Tallahassee, FL, USA.
Harsh SachdevaUniversity of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Demetrios KaiafasClearwater Pain Management, Clearwater, FL, USA.
Edward WashabaughForest Health Medical Center, Ypsilanti, MI, USA.
Samir ShethUniversity of California, Davis, CA, USA.
James ScowcroftPain Management Associates, Independence, MO, USA.
Nagy MekhailCleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3823-9610
Benjamin LampertMercy Spine Center & Pain Management, Springfield, MO, USA.
Thomas YearwoodNeuromodulation Specialists, Pascagoula, MS, USA.
Erik ShawShepherd Center, Shepherd Pain Institute, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Joseph AtallahThe Toledo Clinic, Toledo, OH, USA.
Carroll McLeodJackson Anesthesia Pain Center, Jackson, MS, USA.
John HanGeisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA, USA.
Cong YuSwedish Pain Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Mark SedrakKaiser Permanente, Redwood City Medical Center, Redwood City, CA, USA.
Rene LucasThe CORE Institute, Sun City, AZ, USA.
Andrew TrobridgeIndiana University Health Ball Memorial Hospital, Muncie, IN, USA.
Joseph HegartyOptim Pain Management, Savannah, GA, USA.
Nathan MillerCoastal Pain Research, Carlsbad, CA, USA.
Lilly ChenBoston Scientific Corporation, Division of Neuromodulation, Valencia, CA, USA.
Roshini JainBoston Scientific Corporation, Division of Neuromodulation, Valencia, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe WHISPER randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluates safety and clinical effectiveness of subperception spinal cord stimulation (SCS) at ≤1.2 kHz in subjects previously implanted with an SCS system for treatment of chronic, neuropathic pain.

methodsWHISPER is a prospective, multicenter RCT with a crossover design sponsored by Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02314000). Eligible subjects were randomized (N = 140) to receive subperception or supraperception for three months and then crossed over to receive the alternative. Upon completion of crossover period, subjects who preferred subperception were followed up to one year. Overall pain, quality-of-life, and other outcomes were collected in the study. The primary endpoint was the overall pain responder rate (≥50% improvement from baseline) with no increase in medications. Secondary endpoints consisted of pain scores, physical disability, quality of life, and treatment preference.

resultsThe study met its primary endpoint and demonstrated noninferiority between supraperception and subperception in a prespecified cohort of 70 randomized subjects (Interim Analysis). Thirty-nine percent of subjects with subperception settings and 29% with supraperception settings had a greater than or equal to 50% reduction in their overall pain scores with no increase in average daily medication at three-months post-activation as compared with baseline. Further assessment of all participating study subjects (N = 140) revealed similar results. Subjects were previously implanted 3.8 ± 2 years and had a disability score (Oswestry Disability Index) of 70.2 ± 11.4 at study start. Of the randomized subjects that completed the End of Period 2 Visit, 93 (66%) preferred subperception SCS and their mean overall pain reduced from 7.3 ± 1.1 (N = 89) at baseline to 4.0 ± 2.1 (N = 80) at 12-months post-activation. Post hoc analysis also demonstrated that multiple options provide superior outcomes, as supported by a 74% increase in the responder rate when subjects could choose their most effective option (47%) compared with supraperception alone (27%). DISCUSSION: Subperception SCS at ≤1.2 kHz is safe and effective in subjects with extreme physical disability and previously implanted for chronic pain. Further, by providing study participants with different waveform options, increased pain relief was achieved.

Indexed as

Implantable NeurostimulatorsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChronic PainCross-Over StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain PerceptionProspective StudiesSpinal Cord StimulationTreatment OutcomeChronic painrandomized controlled trialSCSspinal cord stimulationsubperception

Identifiers

PMID31265205
PMCPMC7004055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.