Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39747795›Full record

SynthesisCurrent pain and headache reports2025

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.

Alan D Kaye, Joseph R Archer, Shivam Shah, Coplen D Johnson, Lexa R Herron, Amy E Brouillette, Catherine J Armstrong, Peyton Moore, Shahab Ahmadzadeh, Sahar Shekoohi and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Current pain and headache reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

11 authors.

Alan D KayeDepartments of Anesthesiology and Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Neurosciences, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport, Shreveport, LA, 71103, USA.
Joseph R ArcherTulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA.
Shivam ShahLouisiana State University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine at Shreveport, Shreveport, LA, USA.
Coplen D JohnsonLouisiana State University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine at Shreveport, Shreveport, LA, USA.
Lexa R HerronSt. George's University School of Medicine, University Centre Grenada, West Indies, Grenada.
Amy E BrouilletteLouisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA.
Catherine J ArmstrongDepartment of Anesthesiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, Shreveport, LA, 71103, USA.
Peyton MooreDepartment of Anesthesiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, Shreveport, LA, 71103, USA.
Shahab AhmadzadehDepartment of Anesthesiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, Shreveport, LA, 71103, USA.
Sahar ShekoohiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, Shreveport, LA, 71103, USA. sahar.shekoohi@lsuhs.edu.
Azem A ChamiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, Shreveport, LA, 71103, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewChronic low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and debilitating condition affecting millions worldwide. Among emerging interventions, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has gained attention as a potential alternative for managing chronic LBP, particularly when alternative approaches fail to provide adequate relief. RECENT

findingsThis systematic review focuses on both residual pain levels and ability to perform daily tasks after treatment with SCS. The present investigation includes a systematic search for studies from PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane, and Embase. Sources were eligible for inclusion in the review if they were published from 2010 to present (May 1, 2024). 8 studies involving a total of 1,172 patients were evaluated. This systematic review demonstrated that SCS is superior to conventional medical management (CMM) for both short and long-term pain relief, functionality, psychological well-being, and opioid dependency. Furthermore, newer SCS approaches, such as high frequency (HF), differential target multiplexed (DTM), and multiphase SCS all demonstrated improved efficacy over traditional SCS for pain relief and functionality scores. Adverse event rates for all trials were low and represent the safety of SCS treatments. The present investigation provides insight into the capabilities of both traditional SCS and HF SCS, DTM SCS, and multiphase SCS as compared to baseline pain and functionality as well as conventional medical management (CMM). This review grants physicians a broader picture of the applicability of SCS, its safety profile, and the opportunities it offers for pain reduction and functionality over CMM.

Indexed as

Low Back PainSpinal Cord StimulationChronic PainHumansPain ManagementTreatment OutcomeAnalgesiaChronic low back painPain ManagementSpinal cord Stimulation

Identifiers

PMID39747795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.