Trial reportPain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain2021
Twelve-Month results from multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation and traditional spinal cord stimulation in subjects with chronic intractable back pain and leg pain.
Trial report in Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 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
53 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 120 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spinal Cord Stimulation for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.Current pain and headache reports · 2025Pooled 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
- Early outcomes with a flexible ECAP based closed loop using multiplexed spinal cord stimulation waveforms-single-arm study with in-clinic randomized crossover testing.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2025Trial
- Treating Chronic, Intractable Pain with a Miniaturized Spinal Cord Stimulation System: 1-Year Outcomes from the AUS-nPower Study During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of pain research · 2024Trial
- Twelve-Month results from multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation and traditional spinal cord stimulation in subjects with chronic intractable back pain and leg pain.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2021Trial
- State of the Art in Neuromodulation or Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- History of SCS and patient-focused innovations: a manufacturer's perspective on the role of technology.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2026Review
- Differential target multiplexed SCS (DTM SCS): a rational hypothesis.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2026Review
- Pain Relief and Multidimensional Outcomes of Fast-Acting Subperception Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy for Chronic Pain: The FAST Prospective, Multicenter Study.Pain and therapy · 2026Article
- [New paradigms in spinal cord stimulation (SCS): technology and clinical evidence].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Review
- Open and closed loop differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation in patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome type II: protocol for a one year European multicenter cohort study (ENDLESS).Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- 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
- The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Evidence-Based Consensus Recommendations on Programming and Coding Implantable Spinal Cord Stimulation Devices for Treatment of Chronic Intractable Pain.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
- Spinal Cord Stimulation: Mechanisms of Action, Indications, Types, Complications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- New modes of spinal cord stimulation for pain syndromes - Similar yet different approaches to improving outcomes.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Advances in Neuromodulation and Digital Brain-Spinal Cord Interfaces for Spinal Cord Injury.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Simplified Algorithm for Determining Value-Based Pricing of High-Tech Medical Devices in the Tuscany Region of Italy.Cureus · 2025Article
- Spinal Cord Stimulation for Refractory Angina Pectoris: Current Status and Future Perspectives, a Narrative Review.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- A Review of the Prospera Spinal Cord Stimulation System with Multiphase Stimulation and Proactive Care.Current pain and headache reports · 2025Review
- Neuromodulation in chronic pain management: addressing persistent doubts in spinal cord stimulation.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2025Review
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 11 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established treatment for chronic intractable pain of the trunk and/or limbs; however, low back pain (LBP) is difficult to treat using traditional SCS. Differential Target Multiplexed spinal cord stimulation (DTM SCS) is an advanced approach inspired from animal studies demonstrating improved pain-related behavior and pain-relevant biological processes.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of DTM SCS and traditional SCS in treating chronic LBP and leg pain (LP).
methodsThis prospective, postmarket randomized controlled trial compared DTM SCS to traditional SCS in patients with chronic LBP and LP. Primary end point was LBP responder rate (percentage of subjects with ≥ 50% relief) at 3 months. Noninferiority and superiority were assessed. Other outcomes included mean change in back and leg pain, responder rates, disability, global health, satisfaction, and safety profile throughout the 12-month follow-up.
resultsOne hundred twenty-eight subjects were randomized across 12 centers (67 DTM SCS and 61 traditional SCS). Of the 94 patients implanted, 46 subjects in each group completed the 3-month assessment. LBP responder rate of 80.1% with DTM SCS was superior to 51.2% with traditional SCS (p = 0.0010). Mean LBP reduction (5.36 cm) with DTM SCS was greater than reduction (3.37 cm) with traditional SCS (p < 0.0001). These results were sustained at 6 months and 12 months. Safety profiles were similar between treatment groups.
conclusionSuperiority of DTM SCS compared with traditional SCS for chronic LBP was demonstrated. Clinical improvements provided by DTM SCS were sustained over 12 months and are expected to significantly impact the management of chronic LBP.
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.