ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020
Sub-Perception and Supra-Perception Spinal Cord Stimulation in Chronic Pain Syndrome: A Randomized, Semi-Double-Blind, Crossover, Placebo-Controlled Trial.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Spinal Cord Stimulation vs Medical Management for Chronic Back and Leg Pain: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- Implanted spinal neuromodulation interventions for chronic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- 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
- Chronic, Battery-Free, Fully Implantable Multimodal Spinal Cord Stimulator for Pain Modulation in Small Animal Models.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Adjunctive Efficacy of Superior Hypogastric Plexus Block in Chronic Pelvic Pain: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025Review
- Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation in Chronic Pain Management: Mechanisms, Clinical Evidence, and Emerging Perspectives.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Treatment modalities for patients with Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type II: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- 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
- Spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Interventional pain medicine · 2024Review
- Spinal Cord Stimulation for Central Neuropathic Pain After Spinal Cord Injury: A Single-Center Case Series.Journal of pain research · 2024Article
- Spinal cord stimulation for low back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe introduction of modern sub-perception modalities has improved the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in refractory pain syndromes of the trunk and lower limbs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of low and high frequency SCS among patients with chronic pain. MATERIAL AND
methodsA randomised, semi-double-blind, placebo controlled, four period (4 × 2 weeks) crossover trial was conducted from August 2018 to January 2020. Eighteen patients with SCS due to failed back surgery syndrome and/or complex regional pain syndrome were randomised to four treatment arms without washout periods: (1) low frequency (40-60 Hz), (2) 1 kHz, (3) clustered tonic, and (4) sham SCS (i.e., placebo). The primary outcome was pain scores measured by visual analogue scale (VAS) preoperatively and during subsequent treatment arms.
resultsPain scores (VAS) reported during the preoperative period was M (SD) = 8.13 (0.99). There was a 50% reduction in pain reported in the low frequency tonic treatment group (M (SD) = 4.18 (1.76)), a 37% reduction in the 1 kHz treatment group (M (SD) = 5.17 (1.4)), a 34% reduction in the clustered tonic settings group (M (SD) = 5.27 (1.33)), and a 34% reduction in the sham stimulation group (M (SD) = 5.42 (1.22)). The reduction in pain from the preoperative period to the treatment period was significant in each treatment group (
conclusionsThe pain-relieving effects of SCS reached significance and were comparable across all modes of stimulation including sham. Sub-perception stimulation was not superior to supra-perception. SCS was characterised by a high degree of placebo effect. No evidence of carryover effect was observed between subsequent treatments. Contemporary neuromodulation procedures should be tailored to the individual preferences of patients.
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.