SynthesisRegional anesthesia and pain medicine2025
Methodological and statistical characteristics of meta-analyses on spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Regional anesthesia and pain medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Human versus artificial intelligence: evaluating ChatGPT's performance in conducting published systematic reviews with meta-analysis in chronic pain research.Regional anesthesia and pain medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Relation between socio-economic deprivation and chronic pain-related burden: a cross-sectional evaluation in a secondary care pain rehabilitation clinic.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- A Reaffirmation to Our Call for Reform: Response to Rebuttal Letter Regarding "A Call for Reckoning and Reform in Interventional Pain Medicine and Neuromodulation Research" [Response to Letter].Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- A Call for Reckoning and Reform in Interventional Pain Medicine and Neuromodulation Research.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA growing number of meta-analyses (MA) have investigated the use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) as a treatment modality for chronic pain. The quality of these MAs has not been assessed by validated appraisal tools.
objectiveTo examine the methodological characteristics and quality of MAs related to the use of SCS for chronic pain syndromes. EVIDENCE REVIEW: An online literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus databases (January 1, 2000 through June 30, 2023) to identify MAs that investigated changes in pain intensity, opioid consumption, and/or physical function after SCS for the treatment of chronic pain. MA quality was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) critical appraisal tool.
findingsTwenty-five MAs were appraised in the final analysis. Three were considered "high" quality, three "low" quality, and 19 "critically low" quality, per the AMSTAR-2 criteria. There was no association between the publication year and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β 0.043; 95% CI -0.008 to 0.095; p=0.097). There was an association between the impact factor and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β 0.108; 95% CI 0.044 to 0.172; p=0.002), such that studies published in journals with higher impact factors were associated with higher overall quality. There was no association between the effect size and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β -0.168; 95% CI -0.518 to 0.183; p=0.320).According to our power analysis, three studies were adequately powered (>80%) to reject the null hypothesis, while the remaining studies were underpowered (<80%).
conclusionsThe study demonstrates a critically low AMSTAR-2 quality for most MAs published on the use of SCS for treating chronic pain. Future MAs should improve study quality by implementing the AMSTAR-2 checklist items. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023431155.
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.