Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34478120›Full record

ReviewPain and therapy2021

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review of Effectiveness and Safety.

Standiford Helm, Nikita Shirsat, Aaron Calodney, Alaa Abd-Elsayed, David Kloth, Amol Soin, Shalini Shah, Andrea Trescot

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pain and therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
14.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Value of 2-Dimensional Shear-Wave Elastography in Assessing Tibial Nerve Stiffness in Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Standiford HelmDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, University of California, Irvine, Orange, CA, USA. drhelm@thehelmcenter.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3160-6438
Nikita ShirsatSchool of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Orange, CA, USA.
Aaron CalodneyPrecision Spine Care, Tyler, TX, USA.
Alaa Abd-ElsayedDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
David KlothOrthoCT, Danbury, CA, USA.
Amol SoinOhio Pain Clinic, Dayton, OH, USA.
Shalini ShahDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, University of California, Irvine, Orange, CA, USA.
Andrea TrescotPhysician Partners of America, Orange Park, FL, USA.
University of California, Irvine · USDanbury Hospital · USDayton Clinical Oncology Program · USPrecision Spine (United States) · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) was the first application of neuromodulation. Widespread application of PNS was limited by technical concerns. Recent advances now allow the percutaneous placement of leads with ultrasound or fluoroscopic guidance, while the transcutaneous powering of these leads removes the need for leads to cross major joints. This systematic review was written to assess the current status of high-quality evidence supporting the use of PNS for pain conditions treated by interventional pain physicians. The available literature on PNS, limited to conditions treated by interventional pain physicians, was reviewed and the quality assessed. Literature from 1966 to June 2021 was reviewed. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional improvement. One hundred and two studies were identified. Five randomized controlled trials (RCT) and four observational studies, all case series, met the inclusion criteria. One RCT was of high quality and four were of moderate quality; all four case series were of moderate quality. Three of the RCTs and all four case series evaluated peripheral nerve neuropathic pain. Based upon these studies, there is level II evidence supporting the use of PNS to treat refractory peripheral nerve injury. One moderate-quality RCT evaluated tibial nerve stimulation for pelvic pain, providing level III evidence for this indication. One moderate-quality RCT evaluated surgically placed cylindrical leads for cluster headaches, providing level III evidence for this indication. The evidence suggests that approximately two-thirds of patients with peripheral neuropathic pain will have at least 50% sustained pain relief. Adverse events from PNS are generally minor. A major advantage of PNS over spinal cord stimulation is the absence of any risk of central cord injury. The study was limited by the paucity of literature for some indications. No studies dealt with joint-related osteoarthritic pain.

Indexed as

Cluster headacheNeuropathic painNeuropathyPelvic painPeripheral nerve stimulation

Identifiers

PMID34478120
PMCPMC8586061
OpenAlexW3197280095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.