ReviewJournal of pain research2025
Comparative Effectiveness of Different Frequencies of Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Patients with Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of pain research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is a common and challenging complication after lumbar spine surgery, with around 30% of patients experiencing this condition post-surgery. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a prevalent treatment for FBSS, yet there is a lack of systematic comparisons among different SCS frequencies. This first network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the effectiveness and superiority of different SCS frequencies for FBSS. Material and Methods: Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and CENTRAL for RCTs. Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis assessed outcomes including pain reduction, functional capacity, and health-related quality of life. Results: This NMA (11 RCTs; n=2275) revealed efficacy variations among SCS modalities. Based on surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) rankings, subperception SCS (500-1200 Hz) had the highest probability for global pain relief (SUCRA=64.0%) and ≥50% pain reduction (SUCRA=75.3%; P < 0.05 vs low-frequency SCS). High-frequency SCS (10 kHz) was associated with higher SUCRA values for back pain (99.7%; P < 0.05 vs comparators; consistency χ²=1.41, P = 0.703) and leg pain (93.2%; P < 0.05 vs low-frequency SCS), suggesting a potential advantage. For functional outcomes, high-frequency SCS correlated with better ODI scores (SUCRA=85.0%), while subperception SCS showed higher probability for improved EQ-5D metrics (SUCRA=80.3%). All networks satisfied transitivity assumptions without significant inconsistency (P > 0.05). Conclusion: This NMA suggests potential differential therapeutic profiles among SCS modalities for FBSS. HF-SCS (10 kHz) showed relatively higher SUCRA values for back pain (99.7%), leg pain (93.2%), and disability improvement (ODI 85.0%). Subperception SCS (500-1200 Hz) was associated with better probability for global pain relief (64.0%), ≥50% pain reduction (75.3%), and HRQoL outcomes (EQ-5D 80.3%). These findings warrant validation in head-to-head RCTs.
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.