Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40378232›Full record

Trial reportPain medicine (Malden, Mass.)2025

Early outcomes with a flexible ECAP based closed loop using multiplexed spinal cord stimulation waveforms-single-arm study with in-clinic randomized crossover testing.

Vahid Mohabbati, Richard Sullivan, James Yu, Peter Georgius, Charles D Brooker, Malgorzata Siorek, Nancy L McClelland, Filippo Coletti, Xiaoxi Sun, Abi Franke and 1 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05177354 (Evaluation of Long-term Patient Experience With a Medtronic Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation System), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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.

NCT05177354 nacompletednot on this map

Evaluation of Long-term Patient Experience With a Medtronic Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation System

TypeinterventionalSponsorMedtronicNeuroRan2021 to 2025Enrolled94ConditionsLow Back Pain, Leg Pain, Upper Limb PainArmsInceptiv
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Closed-loop SCS and sensing: now and in the future.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Vahid MohabbatiSydney Pain Research Center, Wahroonga, NSW 2076, Australia.
Richard SullivanPrecision Brain Spine & Pain Centre, Kew, VIC 3101, Australia.
James YuAustralian Medical Research, Hurstville, NSW 2220, Australia.
Peter GeorgiusSunshine Coast Clinical Research, Noosa Heads, QLD 4567, Australia.
Charles D BrookerRoyal North Shore Hospital, St. Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia.
Malgorzata SiorekMedtronic Neuromodulation, Minneapolis, MN 55432, United States.
Nancy L McClellandMedtronic Neuromodulation, Minneapolis, MN 55432, United States.
Filippo ColettiMCRS, Study and Scientific Solutions, Rome, RM 00165, Italy.
Xiaoxi SunMedtronic Neuromodulation, Minneapolis, MN 55432, United States.
Abi FrankeMedtronic Neuromodulation, Minneapolis, MN 55432, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6073-6499
Marc A RussoGenesis Research Services, Broadmeadow, NSW 2292, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7364-9917

Funding

Medtronic Inc.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) systems that deliver fixed amplitudes expose target tissue to varying electrical fields due to the changing lead-to-cord distance accompanying postural shifts and other body movements. Inconsistent stimulation results in periods of overstimulation or under-stimulation perceived by patients as discomfort or potentially inadequate pain relief. CL-SCS may be applied to provide a comfortable level of perception down to imperceptible stimulation, commonly preferred in higher frequency and multiplexed programming. Here we report outcomes from a study evaluating a closed-loop (CL) SCS system that uses spinal evoked compound action potentials to adjust stimulation.

methodsThis ongoing study combines the evaluation of pain-related outcomes (for ≤24 months) with in-clinic randomized, crossover testing of CL performance.

resultsSixty subjects have been implanted with the CL-SCS system, and 54 subjects have completed the 3-month visit. Sixty percent preferred below-perception waveforms for therapy during at-home use. The study successfully met its primary endpoint with 89.3% of subjects in the Primary Analysis Set (n = 28) reporting reduction in overstimulation with CL-SCS relative to OL-SCS at 1 month (P < .001; binomial exact test); at 3 months, 86% of subjects with low-back/leg pain (n = 51); and all 3 with upper limb pain reported ≥50% reduction in pain, relative to baseline.

conclusionsThe data presented here support the performance of a flexible CL-SCS system that can deliver a variety of waveforms, with amplitude programmed to patient comfort and automatically adjusted up to 50 times per second, to improve the consistency of therapy experience. REGISTRATION: This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT05177354 https://clinicaltrials.gov/search? term=NCT05177354.

Indexed as

Chronic PainPain ManagementSpinal Cord StimulationAdultAgedCross-Over StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID40378232
PMCPMC12585107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.