ArticlePain and therapy2026
In-Clinic and At-Home Patient Experiences with Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation: 12-Month Outcomes from the Closed-Loop Australia Randomized Crossover Trial.
Article in Pain and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05177354 (Evaluation of Long-term Patient Experience With a Medtronic Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation System), which is not on this 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.
Evaluation of Long-term Patient Experience With a Medtronic Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation System
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClosed-loop spinal cord stimulation (CL-SCS) uses evoked compound action potential (ECAP) feedback to dynamically adjust stimulation amplitude, reducing under- and overstimulation during postural and activity changes. This manuscript reports 12-month patient-reported stimulation and pain outcomes from the Closed-Loop Australia study.
methodsThis multicenter, prospective, single-arm study used randomized in-clinic crossover testing to investigate the primary outcome of overstimulation in patients using CL-SCS versus open-loop (OL) SCS during protocol-specified movements. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported stimulation characteristics for patient-informed, at-home therapy and pain intensity.
resultsAt 12 months, patients randomized to CL-SCS reported lower rates of overstimulation (median 0.4; IQR 0.0, 1.0) compared with OL-SCS (median 3; IQR 2.6, 4.0). Participants described the stimulation characteristics of their predominant at-home SCS therapy in terms of comfort and ability to perform activities. Eighty-five percent of participants (n = 39) reported being comfortable performing physical activity while their stimulation therapy was engaged, while 19.6% (n = 9) indicated needing to turn their therapy down or off to do certain activities. Pain intensity decreased from baseline by 60 mm and remained stable through 12 months, with 78% (n = 36) of participants achieving ≥ 50% pain relief.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that adaptable stimulation strategies are important in supporting comfort and sustained pain relief. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05177354.
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.