ReviewPain reports2026
Psychological determinants and predictors of outcomes in spinal cord stimulation: a systematic review.
Review in Pain reports, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been proven to be an effective therapy for chronic persistent pain conditions. In addition to somatic and technical variables, the effectiveness of this therapy is also influenced by psychological factors. Despite the growing number of studies, there is currently no consensus on which factors predict outcomes of SCS treatment. The existence of this knowledge gap underscores the need for a systematic review to consolidate the current knowledge about the role of psychological factors in the efficacy of SCS. A comprehensive literature search was conducted for this systematic review. The protocol for this review was registered at the International Database of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42024572349). The data from the included studies were synthesized using an Excel overview. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. After duplicate removal, 1733 studies were identified; 29 studies met the inclusion criteria. The multiple questionnaires used in the included articles to measure psychological factors were divided into 7 domains: fear/anxiety, depressive feelings, catastrophizing, sleep, social functioning, pain, and psychiatric problems. The results were subjected to analysis on a per-domain basis. The domains of fear/anxiety, catastrophizing, and depressive feelings were classified as partially predictive, meaning that the reviewed articles provided mixed evidence regarding their predictive value for SCS outcome. The remaining 4 domains were either inconclusive or nonpredictive of SCS outcome. These psychological factors should not be used in isolation for selection, but they can contribute to a comprehensive assessment before SCS. Significance Statement: In current practice, the predictive value of psychological factors within the scope of outcome in Spinal Cord Stimulation therapy is not always clear. This systematic review aimed to synthesize existing evidence to determine the extent to which psychological factors influence both short- and long-term SCS outcomes, thereby informing clinical decision-making and future research.
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.