Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39891805›Full record

ReviewCurrent pain and headache reports2025

Consenting for Spinal Cord Stimulation - the Pitfalls and Solution.

Vivek Mehta, Rajesh Munglani, Giles Eyre, Gaurav Bajaj, Alaa Abd-Elsayed, Kavita Poply

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

6 authors.

Vivek MehtaBarts Health NHS Trust, Pain Research Centre, London, UK.
Rajesh MunglaniSt Thomas Hospital, London, UK.
Giles EyreChambers of Jacob Levy KC, London, UK.
Gaurav BajajBarts Health NHS Trust, Pain Research Centre, London, UK.
Alaa Abd-ElsayedUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Kavita PoplyBarts Health NHS Trust, Pain Research Centre, London, UK. k.poply@qmul.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewTo discuss the importance of the consenting process for patients undergoing spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy and understanding related complications and effects. RECENT

findingsLitigation for SCS/DRG related complications can be very costly, with the mean average settlement in cases relating to SCS being $303,173 dollars in the USA. According to the US Anaesthesia Closed Claims Project database, 10,546 claims related to pain medicine were made between 1990 and 2013; 43 of which were associated with SCS complications. This article will further explore consenting and complications within the context of SCS. Consenting for SCS is a crucial and very important step which potentially reflect on patients' expectations and outcomes.

Indexed as

Pain ManagementSpinal Cord StimulationHumansUnited StatesChronic painClaimsComplicationsConsentPitfallsSolutionsSpinal cord stimulation

Identifiers

PMID39891805
PMCPMC11787249

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.