ArticleHealth economics review2026
All-in-one spinal cord stimulation and its economic impact.
Article in Health economics review, 2026. 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
Abstract
objectivesThis study estimates the economic and organizational impact of adopting the All-in-One Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) implantation strategy compared to the traditional two-stage approach for chronic pain patients in Spain. We assess savings, resource utilization, and the success rate threshold above which it would be more profitable to perform the procedure in a single phase.
methodsA retrospective study analyzed Real-World Data (RWD) from chronic pain patients treated with SCS between 2012 and 2023. Data included socio-demographics, resource use, and post-implant procedures. A health-economic cost model was developed using RWD results to estimate cost differences between the two approaches over a one-year follow-up. The test phase success rate threshold that equalizes costs between strategies was also determined.
resultsA total of 132 patients met inclusion criteria (94 two-stage, 38 All-in-One). The All-in-One group had shorter hospital stays (0.6 vs. 1.6 days), operating room time (1.8 vs. 3.2 h), and no post-implant interventions (vs. 15 in the two-stage group). Infection rates were significantly lower in the All-in-One group (0% vs. 8.5%). The cost model estimated savings of €3,217 per patient, driven by reductions in infections (67.5%), procedural costs (11.8%), and hospital stay (9.1%). A 76.6% test phase success rate was determined as the economic equivalence threshold.
conclusionThe All-in-One SCS strategy offers significant economic advantages, reducing costs, resource use, and infection rates compared to the two-stage approach. Given the high success rates of the test phase in Europe, hospitals with high success rates should consider transitioning to the All-in-One approach.
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.