ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2024
Twelve-month results from a randomized controlled trial comparing differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation and conventional spinal cord stimulation in subjects with chronic refractory axial low back pain not eligible for spine surgery.
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Implementation of Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome (PSPS): Mechanism-Based Recommendations.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2026Guideline
- 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
- Passive recharge burst spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of refractory nonsurgical low back pain: 24-month results from a prospective randomized controlled trial and predictors of success.North American Spine Society journal · 2026Article
- State of the Art in Neuromodulation or Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- History of SCS and patient-focused innovations: a manufacturer's perspective on the role of technology.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
- Clinical effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation in managing refractory upper-extremity pain.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Spinal Cord Stimulation as a Potential Therapeutic Modality for Managing Concurrent Chronic Low Back and Abdominal Pain Complicated by Device Migration: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- New modes of spinal cord stimulation for pain syndromes - Similar yet different approaches to improving outcomes.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Integrating Artificial Intelligence in Orthopedic Care: Advancements in Bone Care and Future Directions.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Low-energy differential target multiplexed SCS derivative reduces pain and improves quality of life through 12 months in patients with chronic back and/or leg pain.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2025Article
- An Evidence-Based Consensus for the Use of Neurostimulation for the Treatment of Non-Surgical Low Back Pain: The NEURON Group.Journal of pain research · 2025Review
- 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
33 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Successful treatments for intractable chronic low back pain (CLBP) in patients who are not eligible for surgical interventions are scarce. The superior efficacy of differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation (DTM SCS) to conventional SCS (Conv-SCS) on the treatment of CLBP in patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS) who have failed surgical interventions (PSPS-T2) motivated the evaluation of DTM SCS versus Conv-SCS on PSPS patients who are non-surgical candidates (PSPS-T1). Methods: This is a prospective, open label, crossover, post-market randomized controlled trial in 20 centers across the United States. Eligible patients were randomized to either DTM SCS or Conv-SCS in a 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was CLBP responder rate (percentage of subjects with ≥50% CLBP relief) at 3-month in randomized subjects who completed trialing (modified intention-to-treat population). Patients were followed up to 12 months. Secondary endpoints included change of CLBP and leg pain, responder rates, changes in disability, quality of life, patient satisfaction and global impression of change, and safety profile. An optional crossover was available at 6-month to all patients. Results: About 121 PSPS-T1 subjects with CLBP and leg pain mostly associated with degenerative disc disease and radiculopathy and who were not eligible for spine surgery were randomized. CLBP responder rate with DTM SCS (93.5%) was superior to Conv-SCS (36.4%) at the primary endpoint. Superior CLBP responder rates (88.1%-90.5%) were obtained with DTM SCS at all other timepoints. Mean CLBP reduction with DTM SCS (6.52 cm) was superior to that with Conv-SCS (3.01 cm) at the primary endpoint. Similar CLBP reductions (6.23-6.43 cm) were obtained with DTM SCS at other timepoints. DTM SCS provided significantly better leg pain reduction and responder rate, improvement of disability and quality of life, and better patient satisfaction and global impression of change. 90.9% of Conv-SCS subjects who crossed over were CLBP responders at completion of the study. Similar safety profiles were observed between the two groups. Conclusion: DTM SCS for chronic CLBP in nonsurgical candidates is superior to Conv-SCS. Improvements were sustained and provided significant benefits on the management of these patients.
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.