Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38460963›Full record

ArticleRegional anesthesia and pain medicine2025

Application of restorative neurostimulation for chronic mechanical low back pain in an older population with 2-year follow up.

Ardeshir Ardeshiri, Marco Amann, Simon Thomson, Christopher J Gilligan

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Restorative neurostimulation of the lumbar multifidus muscles improves mobility, strength, pain and disability in patients with mechanical chronic low back pain.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 · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Ardeshir ArdeshiriDepartment for Trauma Surgery and Orthopaedics, Klinikum Itzehoe, Itzahoe, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4439-0234
Marco AmannOrthopädisches Krankenhaus Schloss Werneck, Werneck, Germany.
Simon ThomsonPain and Neuromodulation, Mid and South Essex University NHSFT, Orsett Hospital, Essex, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3027-9343
Christopher J GilliganBrigham and Women's Hospital Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA cgilligan@bwh.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4769-9907
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USKlinikum Itzehoe · DEOrsett Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionData on the Medicare-aged population show that older patients are major consumers of low back pain (LBP) interventions. An effective approach for patients with mechanical LBP that has been refractory to conservative management is restorative neurostimulation. The efficacy of restorative neurostimulation has been demonstrated in multiple prospective studies, with published follow-up over 4 years, showing a consistent durable effect.

methodsTo further examine the effect of restorative neurostimulation in an older demographic, data from three clinical studies were aggregated: ReActiv8-B prospectively followed 204 patients, ReActiv8-C study prospectively followed 87 patients and ReActiv8-PMCF prospectively followed 42 patients.Two hundred and sixty-one patients were identified with complete 2-year follow-up and divided into cohorts of equal size based of age quartiles.At 2 years from device activation, patients in either cohort were classified by change in disability (Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)) or change in pain score(NRS/VAS) and assessed as proportion of patients per group at each time point. Additionally, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (EQ5D-5L) was longitudinally compared with baseline. Differences in proportions were assessed using χ

resultsThe oldest quartile (n=65) had a median age of 60 (56-82) years compared with the entire population (n=261) who had a median age of 49 (22-82) years. The completer analysis on patients with 2 years of continuous data showed improvement of a 50% in pain was achieved by 62% and 65% and a 15-point ODI improvement in 48% and 60% in the oldest quartile and entire population, respectively. HRQoL (EuroQol 5-Dimension) improved from baselines of 0.568 and 0.544 to 0.763 and 0.769 in the oldest quartile and entire population respectively. All age quartiles improved statistically and clinically over baseline.

conclusionsThis aggregate analysis of three independent studies provides insight into the performance of restorative neurostimulation in an older population. Patients derived significant and clinically meaningful benefit in disability, pain and HRQoL. When compared with a similarly indicated cohort of younger patients, there were no statistically or clinically significant differences.

Indexed as

Chronic PainElectric Stimulation TherapyLow Back PainAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementProspective StudiesQuality of LifeTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeBack PainCHRONIC PAINOutcome Assessment, Health CarePain Management

Identifiers

PMID38460963
PMCPMC12015028
OpenAlexW4392615533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.