ArticleFrontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland)2025
Extreme pulse dosing of 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation: how low can you go?
Article in Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pulse dosing of high frequency spinal cord stimulation at 10 kHz (10 kHz SCS) may offer comparable clinical benefits as continuous 10 kHz SCS, but extreme pulse dosing (EPD) has not been studied. Methods: Patients using an implantable pulse generator (IPG) with 10 kHz SCS to treat chronic back or leg pain were enrolled. After baseline assessments, patients underwent "EPD titration" starting at an EPD setting of 3%. Patients who preferred the EPD tried progressively lower EPD settings (0.6%, 0.3%, 0.14%, 0.06%), each for 7-10 days, until reaching an EPD they did not prefer over that previously tried. Patients were then followed up for 3 months at their lowest preferred EPD. All study visits included assessment of adverse events and patient-reported outcomes, including the numeric rating score (NRS) for pain intensity, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the PROMIS-SF for sleep disturbance. Device charging information was uploaded from the IPG at each visit. Results: Eighteen patients completed testing (13 M/5 F; mean age, 61 years); 14 patients (78%) reporting a preferred EPD (at any setting) to standard 10 kHz SCS. Among 18 patients, the most common lowest preferred EPD was 0.14% (28%), followed by 0.06% (22%) and 3% (17%). All post-SCS pain scores were lower than pre-SCS pain scores (median NRS, 8.5 vs. 3.0; Conclusions: EPD 10 kHz SCS may offer the same pain relief and quality-of-life benefits as standard 10 kHz SCS, while reducing recharge requirements and potentially lowering the risk of therapy habituation.
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.