ArticleJournal of pain research2021
Real-World Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Spinal Cord Stimulation vs Conventional Therapy in the Management of Failed Back Surgery Syndrome.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2021. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Paddle leads for the treatment of nonsurgical back pain-The DISTINCT study.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2025Trial
- 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
- Neuromodulation strategies in postburn care for pain rehabilitation and scar remodelling.Communications medicine · 2026Review
- Psychometric and Molecular Profiling to Predict Outcomes of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Pain: A Pilot Study.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- SCS for CRPS: A Review of Cost-Effectiveness Models.Current pain and headache reports · 2025Review
- An Evidence-Based Consensus for the Use of Neurostimulation for the Treatment of Non-Surgical Low Back Pain: The NEURON Group.Journal of pain research · 2025Review
- A Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Spinal Cord Stimulation versus Conventional Medical Management for the Treatment of Low Back Pain Using Data from DISTINCT RCT and Medical Claims from a U.S. Commercial Payer Database.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Correlating Evoked Electromyography and Anatomic Factors During Spinal Cord Stimulation Implantation With Short-Term Outcomes.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2024Article
- Healthcare Utilization (HCU) Reduction with High-Frequency (10 kHz) Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) Therapy.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Short- and long-term effects of conventional spinal cord stimulation on chronic pain and health perceptions: A longitudinal controlled trial.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2022Article
- The analgesic effect of lumbar sympathetic ganglion block in patients with failed back surgery syndrome.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFailed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) causes disability and lowers health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for patients. Many patients become refractory to conventional medical management (CMM) and spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is advised. However, comparative cost-effectiveness research of both clinical approaches still lacks further evidence. This probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis compares CMM versus SCS plus CMM in FBSS patients for a 5-year period in Spain. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatient-level data was obtained from a 2-year real-world study (SEFUDOCE) of adults diagnosed with FBSS who were treated with CMM or SCS. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were estimated in terms of direct clinical cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs (€ for 2019) were estimated from the Spanish National Health Service (NHS) perspective. We applied a yearly discount rate of 3% to both costs and outcomes and performed a probabilistic sensitivity analysis using bootstrapping.
resultsAfter 2 years, the health-related quality of life measured by the EQ-5D displayed greater improvements for SCS patients (00.39) than for improved CMM patients (0.01). The proportion of SCS patients using medication fell substantially, particularly for opioids (-49%). In the statistical model projection, compared with the CMM group at year 5, the SCS group showed an incremental cost of € 15,406 for an incremental gain of 0.56 0.56 QALYs, for an ICER of € 27,330, below the €30,000 willingness-to-pay threshold for Spain. SCS had a 79% of probability of being cost-effective.
conclusionSCS is a cost-effective treatment for FBSS compared to CMM alone based on real-world evidence.
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.