Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36147037›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland)2022

Screening trials of spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain in England-A budget impact analysis.

Rui V Duarte, Rachel Houten, Sarah Nevitt, Morag Brookes, Jill Bell, Jenny Earle, Ashish Gulve, Simon Thomson, Ganesan Baranidharan, Richard B North and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

12 authors.

Rui V DuarteLiverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Rachel HoutenLiverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Sarah NevittLiverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Morag BrookesThe James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom.
Jill BellPatient and Public Involvement Representatives, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom.
Jenny EarlePatient and Public Involvement Representatives, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom.
Ashish GulveThe James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom.
Simon ThomsonDepartment of Pain Medicine and Neuromodulation, Mid and South Essex University Hospitals, Essex, United Kingdom.
Ganesan BaranidharanLeeds Neuromodulation Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Richard B NorthNeurosurgery, Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine (ret.), Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Rod S TaylorCollege of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Sam EldabeThe James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Screening trials of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) prior to full implantation of a device are recommended by expert guidelines and international regulators. The current study sought to estimate the budget impact of a screening trial of SCS and the costs or savings of discontinuing the use of a screening trial. A budget impact analysis was performed considering a study population that reflects the size and characteristics of a patient population with neuropathic pain in England eligible for SCS. The perspective adopted was that of the NHS with a 5-year time horizon. The base case analysis indicate that a no screening trial strategy would result in cost-savings to the NHS England of £400,000-£500,000 per year. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate different scenarios. If ≥5% of the eligible neuropathic pain population received a SCS device, cost-savings would be >£2.5 million/year. In contrast, at the lowest assumed cost of a screening trial (£1,950/patient), a screening trial prior to SCS implantation would be cost-saving. The proportion of patients having an unsuccessful screening trial would have to be ≥14.4% for current practice of a screening trial to be cost-saving. The findings from this budget impact analysis support the results of a recent UK multicenter randomized controlled trial (TRIAL-STIM) of a policy for the discontinuation of compulsory SCS screening trials, namely that such a policy would result in considerable cost-savings to healthcare systems.

Indexed as

budget impact analysiscost savingsneuropathic painscreening trialsspinal cord stimulation

Identifiers

PMID36147037
PMCPMC9486155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.