Trial reportThe Clinical journal of pain2020
High-frequency 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Back and Leg Pain: Cost-consequence and Cost-effectiveness Analyses.
Trial report in The Clinical journal of pain, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing Conventional Medical Management to Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Low Back Pain in a Cohort of DISTINCT RCT Patients.Journal of pain research · 2024Trial
- Long-Term Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation Beyond 24 Months: A PRISMA-ScR-Informed Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Cost-Effectiveness of Differential Target Multiplexed Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of PSPS Type 1 from the Belgian Perspective.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Extreme pulse dosing of 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation: how low can you go?Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Healthcare Economics of High Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation for Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Article
- Healthcare Utilization (HCU) Reduction with High-Frequency (10 kHz) Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) Therapy.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Meta-analysis and review of rechargeable implantable pulse generators for spinal cord stimulation and deep brain stimulation.Brain & spine · 2024Review
- Model Analysis of Post-Stimulation Block of a Myelinated Axon by Direct Current.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2023Article
- Model Analysis of Post-Stimulation Effect on Axonal Conduction and Block.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2021Article
- Low frequency conduction block: a promising new technique to advance bioelectronic medicines.Bioelectronic medicine · 2021Article
- Management of Chronic and Neuropathic Pain with 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation Technology: Summary of Findings from Preclinical and Clinical Studies.Biomedicines · 2021Review
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThere is good evidence that spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is effective for reducing chronic back and leg pain (CBLP). SENZA randomized controlled trial showed high-frequency (10 kHz) stimulation (10 kHz-SCS) is clinically superior to traditional low-frequency SCS (LF-SCS).Undertake cost-consequence and cost-effectiveness analysis of 10 kHz-SCS compared with LF-SCS.
methodsA probabilistic decision tree and Markov decision analytic model was used to synthesize data on CBLP outcomes and costs over a 15-year time horizon from a UK National Health Service perspective using data from the SENZA randomized controlled trial and other publications. Results are expressed as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in 2016 Pounds Sterling.
results10 kHz-SCS is cost-saving and cost-effective compared with LF-SCS, with mean cost-savings of £7170 (95% confidence interval: £6767-£7573) and £3552 (95% confidence interval: £3313-£3792) per patient compared with nonrechargeable and rechargeable LF-SCS devices, respectively. 10 kHz-SCS has a 95% likelihood of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY. Our findings were robust across a wide range of sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsThere is a strong economic case for choosing 10 kHz-SCS over LF-SCS for CBLP. Furthermore, 10 kHz-SCS has clinical advantages not captured in our analysis, including shorter, and more predictable procedure times.
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.