ArticleJournal of pain research2025
Clinical Predictors of Pain Relief with 60-Day Peripheral Nerve Stimulation: A Multicenter Observational Study.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observations from the RESET clinical trial: A post-hoc per protocol analysis of clinical outcomes with percutaneous 60-day medial branch PNS in chronic low back pain.Interventional pain medicine · 2026Article
- Quality of ChatGPT-Generated Responses to Common Patient Questions About Peripheral Nerve Stimulation: A Cross-Sectional Study.Clinics and practice · 2026Article
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
Background: Clinical predictors of pain relief with 60-day peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) remained undefined. Identifying the factors associated with treatment outcomes may improve patient selection and optimize results. Objective: This study examined baseline physical activity, pain, disability, and psychological factors influencing early versus delayed response and non-response to a 60-day PNS. Methods: A prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study was conducted on 73 patients who consecutively received a 60-day PNS. Baseline assessments included pain (numeric rating scale [NRS]), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), psychological profiles (Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, PSEQ; Pain Catastrophizing Scale, PCS), and physical activity (physical activity vital signs [PAVS]). Logistic regression and principal component analysis were used to identify the predictors of response phenotypes. Results: Early (≥50% pain relief within 7-14 days of PNS implant that is sustained through the entire 60-day period) and delayed (<50% pain relief in the first 14 days but eventually reaching ≥50% before the end of the 60 days) responder rates were 26% and 43%, respectively. Non-responders (<50% pain relief at the end of the 60-day treatment period) comprised 30.1% of the group. Predictors of early response included high physical activity (OR=4.22, p=0.0006, Area Under the Curve [AUC] =0.81), high pain self-efficacy (OR=1.12, p=0.0004, AUC=0.86), and low catastrophizing (OR=0.88, p=0.0003, AUC=0.86). A delayed response was associated with a longer chronic pain duration (OR=0.83, p=0.027) and high baseline ODI (OR=0.43, p=0.002; AUC=0.79). Nonresponse was linked to psychological distress (eigenvalue =3.23, 40.3% variance), opioid dependency, and morbid obesity (eigenvalue =1.63, 20.4% variance). Conclusion: This real-world study showed that baseline physical activity, psychological resilience, and pain behaviors predicted response to a 60-day PNS. Non-responders presented with psychological distress, morbid obesity, and opioid dependence. These findings may refine patient selection and help to set treatment expectations for 60-day PNS.
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.