ArticleInterventional pain medicine2025
Where are advanced interventional pain procedures happening?
Article in Interventional pain medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: An unprecedented volume of interventional procedures has entered the pain medicine market, including many "advanced" interventional pain procedures. Given the rapid influx, there is concern that there is discordance between what is taught in pain medicine fellowship programs and done in post-graduate practice. Objective: The goal of the study was to compare sales volumes of advanced procedure devices in academic versus non-academic practice settings to better understand the status quo of procedural practice patterns. This information will be critical to establish a baseline understanding of where advanced pain procedures are happening for future comparison. Methods: This cross-sectional observational study examines relative percentages of industry-reported device sales to academic versus non-academic practices from January 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023 in predefined regions of the United States. The data were tabulated and reported as means with corresponding ranges. Results: Six companies, representing nine distinct interventional pain procedures, certified the requested data. The region with the lowest relative mean device sales at academic institutions was the West (10 %) and the highest was the Northeast (22 %). The procedure with the lowest relative mean sales at academic institutions was dorsal root ganglion stimulation (4 %) and the highest was vertebral body cooled radiofrequency for bone tumors (30 %). Conclusion: This study highlights the difference between the relative percentage sales of advanced procedure devices in non-academic versus academic institutions, favoring non-academic sites of service. Yet, for each reported pain procedure, there were device sales in academic settings for almost all regions. It will be essential to continue to monitor how academic procedural training compares to post-graduate practice realities to tailor future educational offerings.
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.