ArticleInterventional pain medicine2026
Fluoroscopic radiation exposure during spinal cord stimulation procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Interventional pain medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Assess the fluoroscopic exposure times of spinal cord stimulator lead placement using systematic review and meta-analysis. Study design: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Methods: Major databases including PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science were used to conduct a systematic review with key terms regarding radiation (i.e. "radiation," "fluoroscopy," "dose area product" etc.) and spine procedures (i.e. "spinal cord stimulator," "injections"). Initial review of abstracts and titles were performed to filter content, followed by full text review by independent authors. Studies that provided fluoroscopic exposure times for percutaneous spinal cord stimulator lead trial and implants were included. Mean and standard deviations for fluoroscopy times (seconds) were compared. Results: 449 patients were included in this study across all studies. Of the total number of patients, 429 received SCS trials and 20 received SCS implants. The range of fluoroscopy time averages during SCS trials was 7 ± 4.4 s to 289 ± 198 s. Discussion: This study provided an initial reference for fluoroscopic times during spinal cord stimulator trials. The fairly limited amount of information found prompts further dialogue and investigative studies on variables that should be accounted for when discussing radiation exposure during interventional procedures.
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.