ArticleCommunications medicine2025
Treatment modalities for patients with Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type II: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Communications medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictors of Treatment Success Following Pulsed Radiofrequency of the Lumbar Dorsal Root Ganglion: A Multivariable Prediction Model with Clinical Nomogram.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- Structural and Functional Treatment of Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type 2: A Fibrosis-Stratified Network Meta-Analysis of Epidural Adhesiolysis and Neuromodulation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Psychological determinants and predictors of outcomes in spinal cord stimulation: a systematic review.Pain reports · 2026Review
- Thoracic myelopathy secondary to epidural scarring with associated infection following spinal cord stimulation implantation.Surgical neurology international · 2026Article
- Patient-Centered Chronic Spinal Pain Management Using Exercise and Neuromodulation: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence as team member versus manual screening to conduct systematic reviews in medical sciences.iScience · 2025Article
- A systematic review of evidence comparing spinal cord stimulation to sham or conservative medical management in the treatment of persistent spinal pain syndrome - Type 2.Interventional pain medicine · 2025Review
- Multifidus Fat Infiltration in Patients with Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type II Treated with Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Preliminary Report.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAppropriate management of patients with Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type 2 (PSPS-T2) remains challenging. The need for robust evidence for treatment modalities is urgently pressing. The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare different treatment modalities for patients with PSPS-T2 on pain intensity.
methodsThe study protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO;CRD42022360160). Four different databases were consulted from database inception to December 18th, 2023. Randomised controlled trials of interventions for PSPS-T2 were included. The revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess risk of bias. A NMA with standardized mean differences was calculated with pairwise comparisons between all treatment modalities.
resultsHere we include 49 studies in the systematic review and 13 in NMA. A high risk of bias is indicated for 65.3% of the studies. Half of the studies investigate neuromodulation (mainly Spinal Cord Stimulation), 16 explore minimal invasive treatment options (predominantly epidural injections), 6 studies focus on conservative treatments (physiotherapy/cognitive training and medication) and 2 on reoperation. Comparison of neuromodulation versus a combination of conservative and minimal invasive options results in an effect size of 0.45 (95% CI: 0.14-0.76), clearly favouring neuromodulation (z = 2.88; p = 0.004). Additionally, neuromodulation results in a standardised mean difference of 0.36 (95% CI: 0.18-0.53) compared to placebo/sham (z = 4.03; p < 0.0001). No statistically significant difference is found between conservative options and neuromodulation.
conclusionsNeuromodulation, followed by conservative treatment options, seems to be the most effective treatment option to obtain pain relief in patients with PSPS-T2. Nevertheless, a personalized approach tailored to individual patient needs is essential for optimizing outcomes, since interventions should be adjusted based on the failure or success of prior therapies.
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.