ArticlePain reports
Using evoked compound action potentials to quantify differential neural activation with burst and conventional, 40 Hz spinal cord stimulation in ovines.
Article in Pain reports. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unlike conventional dorsal spinal cord stimulation (SCS)-which uses single pulses at a fixed rate-burst SCS uses a fixed-rate, five-pulse stimuli cluster as a treatment for chronic pain; mechanistic explanations suggest burst SCS differentially modulate the medial and lateral pain pathways vs conventional SCS. Neural activation differences between burst and conventional SCS are quantifiable with the spinal-evoked compound action potential (ECAP), an electrical measure of synchronous neural activation. Methods: We implanted 7 sheep with a dorsal stimulation lead at T9/T10, a dorsal ECAP sensing lead at T6/T7, and a lead also at T9/T10 but adjacent to the anterolateral system (ALS). Both burst and conventional SCS with stimulation amplitudes up to the visual motor threshold (vMT) were delivered to 3 different dorsal spinal locations, and ECAP thresholds (ECAPTs) were calculated for all combinations. Then, changes in ALS activation were assessed with both types of SCS. Results: Evoked compound action potential thresholds and vMTs were significantly higher ( Conclusion: When dosed equivalently, no differentially unique change in ALS activation results with burst SCS vs conventional SCS; in addition, sub-ECAPT burst SCS results in no discernable excitability changes in the neural pathways feeding pain relevant supraspinal sites.
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.