Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36255427›Full record

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.

Sozaburo Hara, Hege Andresen, Ole Solheim, Sven M Carlsen, Terje Sundstrøm, Greger Lønne, Vetle V Lønne, Kristin Taraldsen, Erling A Tronvik, Lise R Øie and 7 more

3 registry-linked trialsOpen access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
18.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT03546738 nacompletednot on this map

Spinal Cord Burst Stimulation for Chronic Radicular Pain Following Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Randomized Double-blind Sham-controlled Crossover Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorSt. Olavs HospitalRan2018 to 2022Enrolled50ConditionsBack Pain With Radiation, Pain, PostoperativeArmsBurst Spinal Cord Stimulation, Sham spinal cord stimulation, SCS implant
NCT06515132 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Efficacy and Safety of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Disorders of Consciousness: A Multicenter, Double-blind, Randomized Controlled Trail

TypeinterventionalSponsorHuashan HospitalRan2025 to 2026Enrolled50ConditionsDisorder of Consciousness, Spinal Cord StimulationArmsSCS Stimulation, Sham Stimulation
NCT06585033 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Therapy-Resistant Neuropathic Pain After Lumbar Spinal Surgery - A Randomized, Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled, Cross-over Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorSahlgrenska University HospitalRan2024 to 2027Enrolled50ConditionsChronic Postoperative PainArmsSpinal cord stimulation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 111 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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 · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Sozaburo HaraDepartment of Neurosurgery, St Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Hege AndresenDepartment of Neurosurgery, St Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Ole SolheimDepartment of Neurosurgery, St Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Sven M CarlsenDepartment of Endocrinology, St Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Terje SundstrømDepartment of Neurosurgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Greger LønneNational Advisory Unit on Spinal Surgery, St Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Vetle V LønneDepartment of Neurosurgery, St Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Kristin TaraldsenOslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Erling A TronvikDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Lise R ØieDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Agnete M GulatiDepartment of Rheumatology, St Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Lisa M SagbergDepartment of Neurosurgery, St Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Asgeir S JakolaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Tore K SolbergDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø.
Øystein P NygaardDepartment of Neurosurgery, St Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Øyvind O SalvesenDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Sasha GulatiDepartment of Neurosurgery, St Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
St Olav's University Hospital · NONorwegian University of Science and Technology · NOOsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University · NOSahlgrenska University Hospital · SEUiT The Arctic University of Norway · NOUniversity of Bergen · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Back PainChronic PainElectric Stimulation TherapyFailed Back Surgery SyndromeLumbar VertebraeSpinal DiseasesAdultCross-Over StudiesElectrodes, ImplantedEpidural SpaceFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID36255427
PMCPMC9579901
OpenAlexW4306733221

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.