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.
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.
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.
WHISPER - A Randomized Controlled Study to Evaluate the Effectiveness of the Precision Spinal Cord Stimulator System at Sub-Perception Amplitude
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Structural and Functional Treatment of Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type 2: A Fibrosis-Stratified Network Meta-Analysis of Epidural Adhesiolysis and Neuromodulation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- From Pain Relief to Multidimensional Outcomes: A Structured Narrative Review of Success Language in a PubMed/MEDLINE Spinal Cord Stimulation Corpus.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Intrathecal Drug Delivery as a Rescue Strategy in Patients with Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Single-Center Case Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Closed-loop SCS and sensing: now and in the future.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2026Review
- History of SCS and patient-focused innovations: a manufacturer's perspective on the role of technology.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2026Review
- Spinal Cord Stimulation for Non-Reconstructable Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia: A Real-World, Multidisciplinary, Single-Center Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Automated Neural Dosing for Fast-Acting Subperception Therapy: Sustained Spinal Cord Stimulation Outcomes from a Multicenter Study.Pain and therapy · 2025Article
- Advances in Neuromodulation and Digital Brain-Spinal Cord Interfaces for Spinal Cord Injury.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- A Review of the Prospera Spinal Cord Stimulation System with Multiphase Stimulation and Proactive Care.Current pain and headache reports · 2025Review
- Comparative Effectiveness of Different Frequencies of Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Patients with Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of pain research · 2025Review
- Two-Year Outcomes Using Fast-Acting, Sub-Perception Therapy for Spinal Cord Stimulation: A European, Real-World, Multicenter Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- A Narrative Review of the Dorsal Root Ganglia and Spinal Cord Mechanisms of Action of Neuromodulation Therapies in Neuropathic Pain.Brain sciences · 2024Review
- Improved Outcomes and Therapy Longevity after Salvage Using a Novel Spinal Cord Stimulation System for Chronic Pain: Multicenter, Observational, European Case Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Real-world outcomes of single-stage spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain patients: A multicentre, European case series.Interventional pain medicine · 2023Article
- Spinal cord stimulation for low back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Exploratory evaluation of spinal cord stimulation with dynamic pulse patterns: a promising approach to improve stimulation sensation, coverage of pain areas, and expected pain relief.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Combination of waveforms in modern spinal cord stimulation.Acta neurochirurgica · 2022Article
- Concept of the Number Needed to Treat for the Analysis of Pain Relief Outcomes in Patients Treated with Spinal Cord Stimulation.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- Spinal Cord Stimulation for Post Total Knee Replacement Pain: A Case Series.Orthopedic reviews · 2022Article
- Long-Term Efficacy of a Novel Spinal Cord Stimulation Clinical Workflow Using Kilohertz Stimulation: Twelve-Month Results From the Vectors Study.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.