ArticleTrials2020
Comparison of conventional, burst and high-frequency spinal cord stimulation on pain relief in refractory failed back surgery syndrome patients: study protocol for a prospective randomized double-blinded cross-over trial (MULTIWAVE study).
Article in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03014583 (Prospective, Randomized Study Comparing Conventional, Burst And High Frequency), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 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.
Prospective, Randomized Study Comparing Conventional, Burst And High Frequency (HF) Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) in Refractory Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS) Patients After a 32-contact Surgical Lead Implantation
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spinal Cord Stimulation for Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of High- and Low-Frequency Modalities.Pain research & management · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of Spinal Cord Stimulation vs. Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation vs. Association of Both in Patients with Refractory Chronic Back and/or Lower Limb Neuropathic Pain: An International, Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Crossover Trial (BOOST-DRG Study).Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Trial
- [Application of support vector machine in identifying neuromodulation states in patients with zoster-associated pain].Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2026Article
- 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
- Neurostimulation on lumbosacral nerves as a new treatment for spinal cord injury impairments and its impact on cortical activity: a narrative review.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Review
- Sensors and Devices Guided by Artificial Intelligence for Personalized Pain Medicine.Cyborg and bionic systems (Washington, D.C.) · 2024Review
- An optimization framework for targeted spinal cord stimulation.Journal of neural engineering · 2023Article
- Spinal cord stimulation for low back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Research hotspots and trends on spinal cord stimulation for pain treatment: a two-decade bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Combining Awake Anesthesia with Minimal Invasive Surgery Optimizes Intraoperative Surgical Spinal Cord Stimulation Lead Placement.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Combination of waveforms in modern spinal cord stimulation.Acta neurochirurgica · 2022Article
- The Challenge of Converting "Failed Spinal Cord Stimulation Syndrome" Back to Clinical Success, Using SCS Reprogramming as Salvage Therapy, through Neurostimulation Adapters Combined with 3D-Computerized Pain Mapping Assessment: A Real Life Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Patient Selection for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Treatment of Pain: Sequential Decision-Making Model - A Narrative Review.Journal of pain research · 2022Review
- The Added Value of Subcutaneous Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation Combined with SCS, as Salvage Therapy, for Refractory Low Back Pain Component in Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Implanted Patients: A Randomized Controlled Study (CUMPNS Study) Based on 3D-Mapping Composite Pain Assessment.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile the evolution of technology provides new opportunities to manage chronic refractory pain using different waveform modalities of spinal cord stimulation in failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), there is no randomized controlled trial available to compare the efficacy of these different stimulations waveforms to date. MULTIWAVE is a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, crossover trial study designed to compare the clinical efficacy of tonic conventional stimulation (TCS), burst stimulation (BURST) and high-frequency stimulation (HF) in FBSS patients over a 15-month period in SCS implanted patients. METHODS/
designTwenty-eight patients will be recruited in the Poitiers University Hospital, in Niort and La Rochelle Hospitals in France. Eligible patients with post-operative low back and leg pain with an average visual analog scale (VAS) score ≥ 5 for low back pain are implanted and randomly assigned to one of the six arms (in a 1:1:1:1:1:1 ratio), where they receive a 3-month combination of TCS, BURST and HF including one treatment modality per month and varying the order of the modality received within the six possible combinations. Patients receiving intrathecal drug delivery, peripheral nerve stimulation and back resurgery related to the original back pain complaint and experimental therapies are excluded from this study. Patients included in the spinal cord stimulation group undergo trial stimulation, and they all receive a TCS treatment for 2 months, as the gold standard modality. Thereafter, patients are randomly assigned to one of the six arms for the total duration of 3-month crossover period. Then, patients choose their preferred stimulation modality (TCS, BURST, or HF) for the follow-up period of 12 months. Outcome assessments are performed at baseline (first implant), before randomization (2 months after baseline) and at 1, 2, 3, 6, 9 and 15 months post-randomization. Our primary outcome is the average global VAS of pain over 5-day pain diary period between baseline and after each period of stimulation. Additional outcomes include changes in leg and back pain intensity, functional disability, quality of life, psychological state, paraesthesia intensity perception, patient satisfaction and the number of adverse events. DISCUSSION: Recruitment began in February 2017 and will continue through 2019.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT03014583 . Registered on 9 January 2017.
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.