Trial reportJAMA2022
Effect of Spinal Cord Burst Stimulation vs Placebo Stimulation on Disability in Patients With Chronic Radicular Pain After Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 38 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Spinal Cord Burst Stimulation for Chronic Radicular Pain Following Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Randomized Double-blind Sham-controlled Crossover Trial
Efficacy and Safety of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Disorders of Consciousness: A Multicenter, Double-blind, Randomized Controlled Trail
Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Therapy-Resistant Neuropathic Pain After Lumbar Spinal Surgery - A Randomized, Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled, Cross-over Study
Who cites it
38 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 111 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spinal Cord Stimulation vs Medical Management for Chronic Back and Leg Pain: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- Effect of electrical stimulation on the fusion rate after spinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of clinical outcomes associated with spinal cord stimulation (SCS) or conventional medical management (CMM) for chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023Pooled it
- Objective, long-term mobility data in patients with chronic pain after lumbar spine surgery treated with spinal cord stimulation-a prospective, multicenter trial.Regional anesthesia and pain medicine · 2026Trial
- The effect of lumbar stabilization and stretching exercises on pain, disability, and characteristics of the lumbar paraspinal muscles in chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Review
- Measuring and appraising placebo effects in clinical trials: contemporary challenges and approaches in psychiatry.The lancet. Psychiatry · 2026Review
- Study design considerations in clinical trials testing transcutaneous stimulation for spinal cord injury.Spinal cord · 2026Review
- 2024 Japan Society for Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery Guidelines for Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2026Article
- Long-term explantation risk in patients with chronic pain treated with spinal cord or dorsal root ganglion stimulation.Regional anesthesia and pain medicine · 2025Article
- Re: "Intellectual conflicts of interest in spinal cord stimulation research - The gap between theoretical knowledge and clinical expertise".Interventional pain medicine · 2025Article
- A systematic review of evidence comparing spinal cord stimulation to sham or conservative medical management in the treatment of persistent spinal pain syndrome - Type 2.Interventional pain medicine · 2025Review
- The complete relief of chronic pain utilizing electromagnetic theory: A retrospective observational cohort study.iScience · 2025Article
- Spinal cord stimulator utilization trends and predictors of unsuccessful trial-to-implant conversion.North American Spine Society journal · 2025Article
- Chronic, Battery-Free, Fully Implantable Multimodal Spinal Cord Stimulator for Pain Modulation in Small Animal Models.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Treatment modalities for patients with Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type II: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Catastrophizing as a Predictor for Pain Perception and Disability Among Patients Undergoing Spinal Cord Stimulation.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Real-World Outcomes of Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Consecutive Institutional Experience with 505 Trials, Trial-to-Implant Ratio, Long-Term Efficacy, and Explantation Risk Factors.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Comparison of clinical and radiographic outcomes in unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective analysis of three surgical approaches.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
17 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: The use of spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain after lumbar spine surgery is increasing, yet rigorous evidence of its efficacy is lacking. Objective: To investigate the efficacy of spinal cord burst stimulation, which involves the placement of an implantable pulse generator connected to electrodes with leads that travel into the epidural space posterior to the spinal cord dorsal columns, in patients with chronic radiculopathy after surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disorders. Design, Setting, and Participants: This placebo-controlled, crossover, randomized clinical trial in 50 patients was conducted at St Olavs University Hospital in Norway, with study enrollment from September 5, 2018, through April 28, 2021. The date of final follow-up was May 20, 2022. Interventions: Patients underwent two 3-month periods with spinal cord burst stimulation and two 3-month periods with placebo stimulation in a randomized order. Burst stimulation consisted of closely spaced, high-frequency electrical stimuli delivered to the spinal cord. The stimulus consisted of a 40-Hz burst mode of constant-current stimuli with 4 spikes per burst and an amplitude corresponding to 50% to 70% of the paresthesia perception threshold. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was difference in change from baseline in the self-reported Oswestry Disability Index (ODI; range, 0 points [no disability] to 100 points [maximum disability]; the minimal clinically important difference was 10 points) score between periods with burst stimulation and placebo stimulation. The secondary outcomes were leg and back pain, quality of life, physical activity levels, and adverse events. Results: Among 50 patients who were randomized (mean age, 52.2 [SD, 9.9] years; 27 [54%] were women), 47 (94%) had at least 1 follow-up ODI score and 42 (84%) completed all stimulation randomization periods and ODI measurements. The mean ODI score at baseline was 44.7 points and the mean changes in ODI score were -10.6 points for the burst stimulation periods and -9.3 points for the placebo stimulation periods, resulting in a mean between-group difference of -1.3 points (95% CI, -3.9 to 1.3 points; P = .32). None of the prespecified secondary outcomes showed a significant difference. Nine patients (18%) experienced adverse events, including 4 (8%) who required surgical revision of the implanted system. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with chronic radicular pain after lumbar spine surgery, spinal cord burst stimulation, compared with placebo stimulation, after placement of a spinal cord stimulator resulted in no significant difference in the change from baseline in self-reported back pain-related disability. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03546738.
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.