Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36064598›Full record

ArticleTrials2022

Study protocol: Effects of active versus passive recharge burst spinal cord stimulation on pain experience in persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2: a multicentre randomized trial (BURST-RAP study).

Martijn R Mons, Caro Edelbroek, Xander Zuidema, Katja Bürger, Lars Elzinga, Jessica de Vries, Sander van Kuijk, Elbert A Joosten, Jan-Willem Kallewaard

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05421273 (Effects of Active Versus Passive Recharge Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation on Pain Experience in Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type 2), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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.

NCT05421273 narecruitingnot on this map

Effects of Active Versus Passive Recharge Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation on Pain Experience in Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type 2: a Multicenter Randomized Trial (BURST-RAP Study)

TypeinterventionalSponsorRijnstate HospitalRan2022 to 2026Enrolled96ConditionsPersistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type 2, Failed Back Surgery SyndromeArmsSpinal cord stimulation using passive recharge burst stimulation, Spinal cord stimulation using active recharge burst stimulation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Martijn R MonsDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, University Pain Clinic Maastricht (UPCM) Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC+), Maastricht, the Netherlands. m.mons@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4682-5484
Caro EdelbroekDepartment of Anesthesiology, Rijnstate Hospital Arnhem, Arnhem, the Netherlands.
Xander ZuidemaDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, University Pain Clinic Maastricht (UPCM) Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC+), Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Katja BürgerDepartment of Anesthesiology, Alrijne Hospital Leiderdorp, Leiderdorp, the Netherlands.
Lars ElzingaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Bravis Hospital Roosendaal, Roosendaal, the Netherlands.
Jessica de VriesDepartment of Anesthesiology, Elizabeth TweeSteden Hospital Tilburg, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
Sander van KuijkDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht UMC+, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Elbert A JoostenDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, University Pain Clinic Maastricht (UPCM) Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC+), Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Jan-Willem KallewaardDepartment of Anesthesiology, Rijnstate Hospital Arnhem, Arnhem, the Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NLRijnstate Hospital · NLAlrijne Ziekenhuis · NLBravis Ziekenhuis · NLElisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) has shown to be an effective treatment for patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 (PSPS Type 2). The method used to deliver electrical charge in SCS is important. One such method is burst stimulation. Within burst stimulation, a recharge pattern is used to prevent buildup of charge in stimulated tissues. Two variations of burst waveforms are currently in use: one that employs active recharge and one that uses passive recharge. It has been suggested that differences exist between active and passive recharge paradigms related to both efficacy of pain relief and their underlying mechanism of action. Active recharge has been shown to activate both the medial spinal pathway, engaging cortical sensorimotor areas involved in location and intensity of pain, and lateral pathway, reaching brain areas involved with cognitive-emotional aspects of pain. Passive recharge has been suggested to act via modulation of thalamic neurons, which fire in a similar electrical pattern, and thereby modulate activity in various cortical areas including those related to motivational and emotional aspects of pain. The objective of this randomized clinical trial is to assess and compare the effect of active versus passive recharge Burst SCS on a wide spectrum of pain in PSPS Type 2 patients.

methodsThis multicentre randomized clinical trial will take place in 6 Dutch hospitals. PSPS Type 2 patients (n=94) will be randomized into a group receiving either active or passive recharge burst. Following a successful trial period, patients are permanently implanted. Patients complete the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) (primary outcome at 6 months), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NRS), Patient Vigilance and Awareness Questionnaire (PVAQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Quality of Life (EQ-5D), Oswestery Disability Index (ODI), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) and painDETECT questionnaires (secondary outcomes) at baseline, after trial, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months following implantation. DISCUSSION: The BURST-RAP trial protocol will shed light on possible clinical differences and effectivity of pain relief, including emotional-motivational aspects between active and passive burst SCS in PSPS Type 2 patients.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov registration:  NCT05421273 . Registered on 16 June 2022. Netherlands Trial Register NL9194. Registered on 23 January 2021.

Indexed as

Spinal Cord StimulationHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicPainPain ManagementQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeBurst SCSMotivational-emotional aspects of painNeuromodulationPain reliefPersistent spinal pain syndrome type 2Spinal cord stimulation

Identifiers

PMID36064598
PMCPMC9446827
OpenAlexW4294647621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.