ReviewInterventional pain medicine2024
Spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Interventional pain medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of spinal cord stimulation on pain, physical activity, and self-efficacy among patients with neuropathic pain.Pain management · 2026Trial
- Psychological determinants and predictors of outcomes in spinal cord stimulation: a systematic review.Pain reports · 2026Review
- Pulsed radiofrequency for treatment of complex regional pain syndrome: A scoping review.Interventional pain medicine · 2026Review
- Review
- Current and Evolving Concepts in the Management of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Chronic Post-Surgical Pain After Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: An Update on Mechanisms, Risk Factors, and Interventional Treatment Modalities.Journal of pain research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) is a widely recognized treatment for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), particularly in cases where traditional methods are ineffective. This paper systematically reviews randomized controlled trials to analyze the efficacy of SCS, as well as Dorsal Root Ganglion (DRG) Stimulation in treating CRPS, focusing on its long-term effectiveness. Methods: This systematic review focused exclusively on randomized controlled trials to assess a primary outcome of improvement in pain symptoms in patients diagnosed with CRPS. The primary outcomes assessed were pain reduction and patient satisfaction, with attention to functional improvement, quality of life improvement, preference for waveform settings, and complications when such data was made available. Results: The results showed significant pain reduction in CRPS patients treated with SCS and DRG. Preference for specific SCS settings varied among patients, with no clear superiority of one setting over another. Innovations in SCS technology, including novel waveforms and frequencies, demonstrated potential for enhanced efficacy and patient comfort. Conclusions: The review underscores the importance of SCS and DRG as significant treatment options to reduce pain for patients suffering from CRPS. It highlights the need for ongoing research to optimize SCS therapy, focusing on individual patient preferences and responses to different stimulation parameters. This personalized approach could lead to improved patient outcomes in CRPS management. Additionally, as this study only contained data from Randomized Controlled Trials, inclusion of well-conducted observational studies may help to provide stronger evidence for use of this therapy in CRPS 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.