Trial reportRegional anesthesia and pain medicine2024
ECAP-controlled closed-loop versus open-loop SCS for the treatment of chronic pain: 36-month results of the EVOKE blinded randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Regional anesthesia and pain medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Double-blind Study Examining the Safety and Efficacy of Using the Evoke™ Spinal Cord Stimulator (SCS) System With Feedback to Treat Patients With Chronic Pain of the Trunk and/or Limbs.
Targeting the Conus Medullaris With ECAP-Controlled Closed-Loop SCS for the Treatment of Chronic Pelvic Pain: HOPE Trial
Who cites it
43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emotional and psychosocial function after dorsal column spinal cord stimulator implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Regional anesthesia and pain medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- Early outcomes with a flexible ECAP based closed loop using multiplexed spinal cord stimulation waveforms-single-arm study with in-clinic randomized crossover testing.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2025Trial
- Neurophysiological outcomes that sustained clinically significant improvements over 3 years of physiologic ECAP-controlled closed-loop spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain.Regional anesthesia and pain medicine · 2025Trial
- In-Clinic and At-Home Patient Experiences with Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation: 12-Month Outcomes from the Closed-Loop Australia Randomized Crossover Trial.Pain and therapy · 2026Article
- Longitudinal changes in pain catastrophizing and multidimensional health outcomes after passive-recharge burst spinal cord stimulation: a cohort study with follow-up to two years.Acta neurochirurgica · 2026Article
- State of the Art in Neuromodulation or Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Electrophysiologic Characteristics of Epidural Spinal Signals in Preclinical Models of Spinal Cord Stimulation.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2026Article
- History of SCS and patient-focused innovations: a manufacturer's perspective on the role of technology.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2026Review
- Psychological determinants and predictors of outcomes in spinal cord stimulation: a systematic review.Pain reports · 2026Review
- Closed-loop SCS and sensing: now and in the future.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2026Review
- [New paradigms in spinal cord stimulation (SCS): technology and clinical evidence].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Review
- Differential target multiplexed SCS (DTM SCS): a rational hypothesis.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2026Review
- Neuromodulation strategies in postburn care for pain rehabilitation and scar remodelling.Communications medicine · 2026Review
- Long-Term Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation Beyond 24 Months: A PRISMA-ScR-Informed Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Next-Generation SCS Programming Platform: Enhancing ECAP Fidelity and Objectivity to Improve Patient Experience.Pain and therapy · 2026Article
- A case series of two patients using closed-loop spinal cord stimulation: demonstration of the impact of real-time adjustments.Journal of surgical case reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Electrophysiological Characteristics of Epidural Spinal Signals in Preclinical Models of Spinal Cord Stimulation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Evidence-Based Consensus Recommendations on Programming and Coding Implantable Spinal Cord Stimulation Devices for Treatment of Chronic Intractable Pain.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
44 authors at 18 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe evidence for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been criticized for the absence of blinded, parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and limited evaluations of the long-term effects of SCS in RCTs. The aim of this study was to determine whether evoked compound action potential (ECAP)-controlled, closed-loop SCS (CL-SCS) is associated with better outcomes when compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS (OL-SCS) 36 months following implant.
methodsThe EVOKE study was a multicenter, participant-blinded, investigator-blinded, and outcome assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled, parallel-arm clinical trial that compared ECAP-controlled CL-SCS with fixed-output OL-SCS. Participants with chronic, intractable back and leg pain refractory to conservative therapy were enrolled between January 2017 and February 2018, with follow-up through 36 months. The primary outcome was a reduction of at least 50% in overall back and leg pain. Holistic treatment response, a composite outcome including pain intensity, physical and emotional functioning, sleep, and health-related quality of life, and objective neural activation was also assessed.
resultsAt 36 months, more CL-SCS than OL-SCS participants reported ≥50% reduction (CL-SCS=77.6%, OL-SCS=49.3%; difference: 28.4%, 95% CI 12.8% to 43.9%, p<0.001) and ≥80% reduction (CL-SCS=49.3%, OL-SCS=31.3%; difference: 17.9, 95% CI 1.6% to 34.2%, p=0.032) in overall back and leg pain intensity. Clinically meaningful improvements from baseline were observed at 36 months in both CL-SCS and OL-SCS groups in all other patient-reported outcomes with greater levels of improvement with CL-SCS. A greater proportion of patients with CL-SCS were holistic treatment responders at 36-month follow-up (44.8% vs 28.4%), with a greater cumulative responder score for CL-SCS patients. Greater neural activation and accuracy were observed with CL-SCS. There were no differences between CL-SCS and OL-SCS groups in adverse events. No explants due to loss of efficacy were observed in the CL-SCS group.
conclusionThis long-term evaluation with objective measurement of SCS therapy demonstrated that ECAP-controlled CL-SCS resulted in sustained, durable pain relief and superior holistic treatment response through 36 months. Greater neural activation and increased accuracy of therapy delivery were observed with ECAP-controlled CL-SCS than OL-SCS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02924129.
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.