ReviewJournal of pain research2026
Spinal Cord Stimulation for Pain Management Following Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Case Report: Beyond chronicity: sustained multidimensional response to spinal cord stimulation three decades after traumatic spinal cord injury.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Chronic pain affects more than 80% of individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI), profoundly impairing mobility, rehabilitation, and quality of life. Conventional pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments often fail to achieve adequate relief. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a potential neuromodulatory therapy for neuropathic pain; however, its role in SCI remains insufficiently defined. Patients and methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024541622). Comprehensive searches of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were performed through April 2024. Eligible studies evaluated SCS for chronic pain in adults with SCI and reported validated pain or patient-reported outcomes. Screening, eligibility assessment, and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework and the MethodologicAl STandards for Epidemiological Research (MASTER) tool. Results: From 1064 records, 10 studies involving 43 participants met inclusion criteria. Most were case reports or small case series, with one prospective cohort study. All studies reported pain improvement after SCS using heterogenous outcome formats; minor adverse events were reported in 3 studies, and the remaining 7 studies reported none. The overall certainty of evidence was rated very low due to small sample sizes, heterogeneity in study design, and methodological limitations. Three ongoing clinical trials evaluating SCS for pain in SCI were also identified. Conclusion: Preliminary, very low-certainty evidence indicates that SCS may be a promising option for chronic pain after SCI, with limited reported complications in the available literature. Higher-quality studies are required to confirm benefit, characterize risks, and guide patient selection and programming. Prospero Registration Number: CRD42024541622.
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.