ArticleJournal of neural engineering2020
Anatomical and technical factors affecting the neural response to epidural spinal cord stimulation.
Article in Journal of neural engineering, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06587841 (Noninvasive Spinal Cord Neuromodulation to Improve Lower Urinary Tract Function After Spinal Cord Injury in Ukrainian War Veterans), which is not on this map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Noninvasive Spinal Cord Neuromodulation to Improve Lower Urinary Tract Function After Spinal Cord Injury in Ukrainian War Veterans
Who cites it
33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of computational models for the design of spinal cord stimulation therapies: from neural circuits to patient-specific simulations.The Journal of physiology · 2023Pooled it
- Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms of Spinal Cord Stimulation: Linking Dorsal Horn Circuits, Glia, and ECAP-Guided Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Predict neuromuscular performance in human epidural electrical stimulation: phase 1 trial interim results.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Harnessing Spinal Cord Stimulation and Neuromodulation for Functional Restoration: From Pain Management to Motor Recovery.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- The optimization of neuroprosthetic interfaces relying on biophysical and surrogate digital twins.npj biomedical innovations · 2026Review
- Transcutaneous interference spinal cord stimulation: leadfield-based pareto optimization of electrode montages for improved focality.Biomedical engineering letters · 2026Article
- Distributed battery-free bioelectronic implants with improved network power transfer efficiency via magnetoelectrics.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Quantum Mechanical Mechanisms in the Therapeutic Effects of Spinal Cord Stimulation to Treat Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Quantum Computational Model.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- SpIC3D imaging for spinal in situ contrast 3D visualization.Cell reports methods · 2025Article
- Comparison of activation and selectivity in dorsal and ventral epidural spinal cord stimulation in rats: a computational modeling study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Electrode position, size, and orientation determine efficacy of cervical epidural stimulation to recruit forelimb muscles in rats.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Daily electric field treatment improves functional outcomes after thoracic contusion spinal cord injury in rats.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Functional Ultrasound Imaging Reveals Activation Properties of Clinical Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy Programming.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Correlating Evoked Electromyography and Anatomic Factors During Spinal Cord Stimulation Implantation With Short-Term Outcomes.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2024Article
- MRI Spinal Cord Reconstruction Provides Insights into Mapping and Migration Following Percutaneous Epidural Stimulation Implantation in Spinal Cord Injury.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Biophysics of Frequency-Dependent Variation in Paresthesia and Pain Relief during Spinal Cord Stimulation.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024Article
- Computational modeling of dorsal root ganglion stimulation using an Injectrode.Journal of neural engineering · 2024Article
- Nonbinary 2D Distribution Tool Maps Autonomic Nerve Fiber Clustering in Lumbosacral Ventral Roots of Rhesus Macaques.eNeuro · 2024Article
- Finite element analysis of electric field distribution during direct current stimulation of the spinal cord: Implications for device design.APL bioengineering · 2023Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a common neurostimulation therapy to treat chronic pain. Computational models represent a valuable tool to study the potential mechanisms of action of SCS and to optimize the design and implementation of SCS technologies. However, it is imperative that these computational models include the appropriate level of detail to accurately predict the neural response to SCS and to correlate model predictions with clinical outcomes. Therefore, the goal of this study was to investigate several anatomic and technical factors that may affect model-based predictions of neural activation during thoracic SCS. APPROACH: We developed computational models that consisted of detailed finite element models of the lower thoracic spinal cord, surrounding tissues, and implanted SCS electrode arrays. We positioned multicompartment models of sensory axons within the spinal cord to calculate the activation threshold for each sensory axon. We then investigated how activation thresholds changed as a function of several anatomical variables (e.g. spine geometry, dorsal rootlet anatomy), stimulation type (i.e. voltage-controlled vs. current-controlled), electrode impedance, lead position, lead type, and electrical properties of surrounding tissues (e.g. dura conductivity, frequency-dependent conductivity). MAIN
resultsSeveral anatomic and modeling factors produced significant percent differences or errors in activation thresholds. Rostrocaudal positioning of the cathode with respect to the vertebrae had a large effect (up to 32%) on activation thresholds. Variability in electrode impedance produced significant changes in activation thresholds for voltage-controlled stimulation (38% to 51%), but had little effect on activation thresholds for current-controlled stimulation (less than 13%). Changing the dura conductivity also produced significant differences in activation thresholds. SIGNIFICANCE: This study demonstrates several anatomic and technical factors that can affect the neural response to SCS. These factors should be considered in clinical implementation and in future computational modeling studies of thoracic SCS.
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.