ArticleBMJ open2025
Long-term lived experiences of patients with chronic pain or angina pectoris treated with spinal cord stimulation: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the short-term and long-term lived experiences of patients with chronic pain and angina pectoris with spinal cord stimulation.
designAn interpretive qualitative study with thematic analysis of one-off, semistructured interviews, following Braun and Clarke (2006).
settingA multidisciplinary, publicly funded pain service in Auckland, New Zealand. Patients usually undergo a comprehensive medical, psychological and functional assessment and an in-house pain management programme before proceeding to spinal cord stimulator implantation.
participantsParticipants implanted with a spinal cord stimulator between 1998 and 2019 who had their stimulator for ≥1 year, purposively sampled to increase the range of ethnicities. MAIN OUTCOME: The themes identified from the interviews.
results24 participants with chronic pain of varied aetiology and a median (range) of 5.2 (2.4-23.2) years since stimulator implantation participated. 22 participants had the device in situ, and 2 had been explanted. Five main themes were identified: (1) embodiment: stimulator and body as one; (2) technical factors: batteries and type of stimulation; (3) improved well-being; (4) social connection and (5) healthcare system interaction. Most participants reported pain relief, but many had experienced complications and discomfort. They emphasised the importance of ongoing support from the pain service. Acceptance of pain, coping and embodiment emerged as common motifs across these themes. 21 participants were satisfied with their treatment.
conclusionWithin the context of a multidisciplinary pain clinic, despite some discomfort and various complications, most participants valued the ongoing reduction of pain achieved with spinal cord stimulation. Timely access to support from the pain service influenced their experience and satisfaction with their stimulators. Acceptance of pain and embodiment of the stimulator helped participants adapt to living with their stimulator, often over many years.
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.