ReviewPain reports2025
Characterization of preclinical models to investigate spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Pain reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms of Spinal Cord Stimulation: Linking Dorsal Horn Circuits, Glia, and ECAP-Guided Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Emerging targets and translational challenges in treating paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy.Molecular biology reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite advancements in preclinical and clinical spinal cord stimulation (SCS) research, the mechanisms of SCS action remain unclear. This may result from challenges in translatability of findings between species. Our systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42023457443) aimed to comprehensively characterize the important translational components of preclinical SCS models, including stimulating elements and stimulation specifications. Databases (Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and WikiStim) were searched on October 5, 2023, identifying 78 studies meeting the search criteria. We conducted a post hoc meta-analysis, including subgroup analyses and meta-regression, to assess SCS efficacy on mechanical hypersensitivity in rats subjected to neuropathic pain. Although monopolar electrodes were predominantly used as stimulating elements until 2013, quadripolar paddle and cylindrical leads gained recent popularity. Most research was conducted using 50 Hz and 200 µs stimulation. Motor threshold (MT) estimation was the predominant strategy to determine SCS intensity, which was set to 71.9% of MT on average. Our analysis revealed a large effect size for SCS (Hedge
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.