Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37007861›Full record

ReviewPain research & management2023

The Effectiveness of Various Types of Electrical Stimulation of the Spinal Cord for Chronic Pain in Patients with Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Literature Review.

Emil Isagulyan, Vasily Tkachenko, Denis Semenov, Svetlana Asriyants, Evgeny Dorokhov, Elizaveta Makashova, Karina Aslakhanova, Alexei Tomskiy

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pain research & management, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
14.2field-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.

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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Immunoinflammatory mechanisms and emerging therapies for postherpetic neuralgia.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Emil IsagulyanBurdenko Institute of Neurosurgery, National Medical Research Center for Neurosurgery Named after Academician N. N. Burdenko, 4th Tverskaya-Yamskaya Street 16, Moscow 125047, Russia.ORCID 0000-0003-1191-9357
Vasily TkachenkoCentral State Medical Academy of Russian Federation, Marshalla Timoshenko Street, 19, Moscow 121359, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-6824-3127
Denis SemenovBurdenko Institute of Neurosurgery, National Medical Research Center for Neurosurgery Named after Academician N. N. Burdenko, 4th Tverskaya-Yamskaya Street 16, Moscow 125047, Russia.ORCID 0000-0001-9105-671X
Svetlana AsriyantsBurdenko Institute of Neurosurgery, National Medical Research Center for Neurosurgery Named after Academician N. N. Burdenko, 4th Tverskaya-Yamskaya Street 16, Moscow 125047, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-1821-6323
Evgeny DorokhovBurdenko Institute of Neurosurgery, National Medical Research Center for Neurosurgery Named after Academician N. N. Burdenko, 4th Tverskaya-Yamskaya Street 16, Moscow 125047, Russia.ORCID 0000-0001-5505-408X
Elizaveta MakashovaBurdenko Institute of Neurosurgery, National Medical Research Center for Neurosurgery Named after Academician N. N. Burdenko, 4th Tverskaya-Yamskaya Street 16, Moscow 125047, Russia.ORCID 0000-0003-2441-8818
Karina AslakhanovaBurdenko Institute of Neurosurgery, National Medical Research Center for Neurosurgery Named after Academician N. N. Burdenko, 4th Tverskaya-Yamskaya Street 16, Moscow 125047, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-6334-392X
Alexei TomskiyBurdenko Institute of Neurosurgery, National Medical Research Center for Neurosurgery Named after Academician N. N. Burdenko, 4th Tverskaya-Yamskaya Street 16, Moscow 125047, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-2120-0146
Burdenko Neurosurgery Institute · RUCentral State Medical Academy · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a severe condition that remains a challenge to treat. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is used in cases of insufficient efficacy of conservative treatment. However, in contrast to many other neuropathic pain syndromes, there is a huge problem in reaching long-term stable pain relief in patients with PHN using conventional tonic SCS. The objective of this article was to present a review of the current management strategies of PHN, their efficacy, and safety. Materials and Methods: We searched for articles containing the keywords "spinal cord stimulation AND postherpetic neuralgia," "high-frequency stimulation AND postherpetic neuralgia," "burst stimulation AND postherpetic neuralgia" and "dorsal root ganglion stimulation AND postherpetic neuralgia" in Pubmed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. The search was limited to human studies published in the English language. There were no publication period limitations. Bibliographies and references of selected publications on neurostimulation for PHN were further manually screened. The full text of each article was studied once the abstract was analyzed by the searching reviewer and found appropriate. The initial search yielded 115 articles. Initial screening based on abstract and title allowed us to exclude 29 articles (letters, editorials, and conference abstracts). The full-text analysis allowed us to exclude another 74 articles (fundamental research articles, research utilizing animal subjects, and systemic and nonsystemic reviews) and results of PHN treatment presented with other conditions, leaving 12 articles for the final bibliography. Results: 12 articles reporting on the treatment of 134 patients with PHN were analyzed, with a disproportionally large amount of traditional SCS treatment than that to alternative SCS: DRGS (13 patients), burst SCS (1 patient), and high-frequency SCS (2 patients). Long-term pain relief was achieved in 91 patients (67.9%). The mean VAS score improvement was 61.4% with a mean follow-up time of 12.85 months. Although the number of patients in alternative SCS studies was very limited, almost all of them showed good responses to therapy with more than 50% VAS improvement and reduction of analgesic dosage. The article contains a review analysis of 12 articles concerning the current methods of treatment for postherpetic neuralgia including conservative treatment, spinal cord stimulation, and novel neuromodulation strategies. Available information on the pathophysiology of PHN and the effect or stimulation on its course, together with a number of technical nuances concerning various types of neurostimulation are also elucidated in this article. A number of alternative invasive treatments of PHN are also discussed. Conclusions: Spinal cord stimulation is an established treatment option for patients with pharmacologically resistant PHN. High-frequency stimulation, burst stimulation, and dorsal root ganglion stimulation are promising options in the management of PHN due to the absence of paresthesias which can be painful for patients with PHN. But more research is still required to recommend the widespread use of these new methods.

Indexed as

Chronic PainNeuralgiaNeuralgia, PostherpeticSpinal Cord StimulationElectric StimulationHumansSpinal Cord

Identifiers

PMID37007861
PMCPMC10065853
OpenAlexW4360801569

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.