ReviewCurrent pain and headache reports2025
The Impact of Racial and Low Socioeconomic Status on the Implementation of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Pain in the United States.
Review 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to review the societal, economic, and racial factors that impact the usage of spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain. Our working hypothesis is that patients of ethnic minority groups or of lower socioeconomic status (SES) status may have lower implantation rates and usage of spinal cord stimulation (SCS). MATERIALS AND
methodsOur study sourced publications from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library on December 21st, 2023 for SCS for the purposes of pain management. Articles were excluded from the review if the study was not USA based, did not involve SCS for the purpose of pain or did not allow for the subgroup analysis. There were 1028 reports that resulted after the initial search with 184 duplicates which were removed. Six reports met the inclusion and exclusionary criteria and were included in the review.
resultsSeveral trends were able to be extrapolated from the pooled reviews. Orhurhu et al. found that Black and Hispanic minorities had a higher utilization rate of SCSs than their White and Asian counterparts in the inpatient setting. Jones and Missios et al. found that in the outpatient setting, White and privately insured patients were more likely to utilize SCS. Ovrom et al. observed an increased cost associated with Hispanic ethnicity and inpatient SCS utilization. Wondwossen et al. found that in the US military system White patients were more likely to receive SCS earlier in their care than Black patients. Labaran et al. concluded the Southern US completed more SCS implants, particularly in White patients with Medicare insurance.
conclusionsWhite patients are recipients of SCS earlier and more frequently than minority patients in the outpatient setting. There is mixed evidence regarding inpatient SCS and how household income relates to SCS usage. Insurance type and coverage may be more accurately predictive than simple household income for SCS utilization.
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.