ArticleActa neurochirurgica2022
Combination of waveforms in modern spinal cord stimulation.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and efficacy of occipital nerve stimulation as treatment of chronic cluster headache: an investigator-initiated, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study.The journal of headache and pain · 2026Trial
- Spinal cord stimulation: An emerging strategy for chronic pain relief after spinal cord injury.Neural regeneration research · 2026Article
- Spinal Cord Stimulation: Mechanisms of Action, Indications, Types, Complications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Uncomfortable Paresthesia and Dysesthesia Following Tonic Spinal Cord Stimulator Implantation.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Spinal Cord Stimulation for Painful Diabetic Neuropathy.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Review
- Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAfter the surge of burst stimulation, different waveforms were developed to optimize results in spinal cord stimulation. Studies have shown higher responder rates for multiwave therapy, but since the launch of such multiwave systems, little is known about the patients' preference regarding waveforms in the long-term follow-up. No study connected particular waveforms to specific pain etiologies or required stimulation parameters so far.
methodThirty-four patients with refractory chronic neuropathic pain were treated with spinal cord stimulation systems providing multiwave therapy between September 2018 and October 2019. Patients with a follow-up of at least 6 months were selected; 10 subjects were excluded due to revision surgery, infection, and loss to follow-up. Data regarding pain intensity and preferred waveform for the trial, the implantation, 3-month and 6-month follow-up were recorded.
resultsDuring the trial phase, 10 patients (43.5%) achieved significant pain relief using tonic stimulation, 5 using burst (21.7%), 3 using microburst (13.0%), and 4 using a combination of tonic and microburst (17.4%). One single patient preferred Contour stimulation during the trial. After 3 months, 6 patients preferred microburst (25%), 6 preferred tonic (25%), 5 used a combination of tonic and microburst (20.8%), and 5 patients used burst (20.8%). After 6 months, similar results were obtained. Contour and Whisper were used in complex cases failing to other waveforms.
conclusionsTonic stimulation, isolated or in combination, remains an important component in spinal cord stimulation, being used by almost half of the patients. Over time, the usage of microburst increased considerably. Whisper and Contour, although battery-consuming, are good salvage options in complex cases.
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.