Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35310895›Full record

ArticleJournal of pain research2022

60-Day PNS Treatment May Improve Identification of Delayed Responders and Delayed Non-Responders to Neurostimulation for Pain Relief.

Ramana Naidu, Sean Li, Mehul J Desai, Samir Sheth, Nathan D Crosby, Joseph W Boggs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pain research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
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

6 authors.

Ramana NaiduCalifornia Orthopedics & Spine, Larkspur, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1123-1771
Sean LiPremier Pain Centers, Shrewsbury, NJ, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0492-1179
Mehul J DesaiInternational Spine Pain & Performance Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Samir ShethSutter Roseville Pain Management, Roseville, CA, USA.
Nathan D CrosbySPR Therapeutics, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6181-0806
Joseph W BoggsSPR Therapeutics, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7973-7990

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Conventional neurostimulation typically involves a brief (eg, ≤10-day) trial to assess presumed effectiveness prior to permanent implantation. Low trial conversion rates and high explant rates due to inadequate pain relief highlight the need for improved patient identification strategies. The development of a 60-day percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) system enables evaluation of outcomes following an extended temporary treatment period of up to 60 days, that may obviate or validate the need for permanent implant. The present study provides the first real-world evidence regarding patient response throughout a 60-day PNS treatment period. Methods: Anonymized data listings were compiled from patients who underwent implantation of temporary percutaneous leads and opted-in to provide real-world data to the device manufacturer during routine interactions with device representatives throughout the 60-day treatment. Results: Overall, 30% (222/747) of patients were early responders (≥50% pain relief throughout treatment). Another 31% (231/747) of patients initially presented as non-responders but surpassed 50% pain relief by the end of treatment. Conversely, 32% (239/747) of patients were non-responders throughout treatment. An additional 7% (55/747) of patients initially presented as responders but fell below 50% relief by the end of the treatment period. Conclusion: An extended, 60-day PNS treatment may help identify delayed responders, providing the opportunity for sustained relief and improving access to effective PNS treatment. Compared to a conventionally short trial of ≤10 days, a longer 60-day PNS treatment may also help reduce explant rates by identifying delayed non-responders unlikely to benefit long-term. These scenarios support the importance of an extended 60-day temporary PNS stimulation period to help inform stepwise treatment strategies that may optimize outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Indexed as

60-day PNSchronic painneuromodulationperipheral nerve stimulationreal-world evidence

Identifiers

PMID35310895
PMCPMC8932923

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.