Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32187774›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2020

Appropriate referral and selection of patients with chronic pain for spinal cord stimulation: European consensus recommendations and e-health tool.

Simon Thomson, Frank Huygen, Simon Prangnell, José De Andrés, Ganesan Baranidharan, Hayat Belaïd, Neil Berry, Bart Billet, Jan Cooil, Giuliano De Carolis and 9 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of pain (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.5field-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.

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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The Implementation of Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome (PSPS): Mechanism-Based Recommendations.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

19 authors at 15 institutions in 9 countries.

Simon ThomsonDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals, Basildon, UK.
Frank HuygenDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Simon PrangnellClinical Neuropsychology Service, Oxford University Hospitals, Oxford, UK.
José De AndrésValencia University Medical School Anesthesia Unit - Surgical Specialties Department, Department of Anaesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Management, General University Hospital, Valencia, Spain.
Ganesan BaranidharanLeeds Pain and Neuromodulation Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, UK.
Hayat BelaïdDepartment of Neurosurgery, Fondation Ophtalmologique Adolphe de Rothschild, Paris, France.
Neil BerryNeuromodulation Team, Wessex Neurological Centre, Southampton, UK.
Bart BilletDepartment of Anaesthesiology, AZ Delta, Roeselare, Belgium.
Jan CooilDepartment of Physiotherapy, Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals, Basildon, UK.
Giuliano De CarolisAnaesthesiology & Pain Therapy Unit, Santa Chiara University Hospital, Pisa, Italy.
Laura DemartiniPain Unit, Clinical Scientific Institutes Maugeri, Pavia, Italy.
Sam EldabeDepartment of Pain Medicine, The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.
Kliment GatzinskyDepartment of Neurosurgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Jan W KallewaardDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Pain Management, Rijnstate Hospital, Velp, The Netherlands.
Kaare MeierDepartment of Neurosurgery and Department of Anaesthesiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Mery ParoliAnaesthesiology & Pain Therapy Unit, Santa Chiara University Hospital, Pisa, Italy.
Angela StarkPain Management Service, Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals, Basildon, UK.
Matthias WinkelmüllerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Friederikenstift Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Herman StoevelaarCentre for Decision Analysis and Support, Ismar Healthcare, Lier, Belgium.
Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBOspedale Santa Chiara · ITAarhus University Hospital · DKAZ Delta · BEErasmus MC · NLEssex Cardiothoracic Centre · GBFondation Ophtalmologique Adolphe de Rothschild · FRGerman Liver Foundation · DEHospital General Universitario De Valencia · ESIstituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri · ITJames Cook University Hospital · GBLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBRijnstate Hospital · NLSahlgrenska University Hospital · SE

Funding

Boston Scientific
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established treatment for chronic neuropathic, neuropathic-like and ischaemic pain. However, the heterogeneity of patients in daily clinical practice makes it often challenging to determine which patients are eligible for this treatment, resulting in undesirable practice variations. This study aimed to establish patient-specific recommendations for referral and selection of SCS in chronic pain.

methodsA multidisciplinary European panel used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM) to assess the appropriateness of (referral for) SCS for 386 clinical scenarios in four pain areas: chronic low back pain and/or leg pain, complex regional pain syndrome, neuropathic pain syndromes and ischaemic pain syndromes. In addition, the panel identified a set of psychosocial factors that are relevant to the decision for SCS treatment.

resultsAppropriateness of SCS was strongly determined by the neuropathic or neuropathic-like pain component, location and spread of pain, anatomic abnormalities and previous response to therapies targeting pain processing (e.g. nerve block). Psychosocial factors considered relevant for SCS selection were as follows: lack of engagement, dysfunctional coping, unrealistic expectations, inadequate daily activity level, problematic social support, secondary gain, psychological distress and unwillingness to reduce high-dose opioids. An educational e-health tool was developed that combines clinical and psychosocial factors into an advice on referral/selection for SCS.

conclusionsThe RUAM was useful to establish a consensus on patient-specific criteria for referral/selection for SCS in chronic pain. The e-health tool may help physicians learn to apply an integrated approach of clinical and psychosocial factors. SIGNIFICANCE: Determining the eligibility of SCS in patients with chronic pain requires careful consideration of a variety of clinical and psychosocial factors. Using a systematic approach to combine evidence from clinical studies and expert opinion, a multidisciplinary European expert panel developed detailed recommendations to support appropriate referral and selection for SCS in chronic pain. These recommendations are available as an educational e-health tool (https://www.scstool.org/).

Indexed as

Chronic PainSpinal Cord StimulationTelemedicineHumansPatient SelectionReferral and ConsultationSpinal Cord

Identifiers

PMID32187774
PMCPMC7318692
OpenAlexW3012336146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.