ReviewPain reports2026
Peripheral nerve field stimulation for chronic low back pain: 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) presents a major challenge in pain management, often persisting despite standard therapies. Peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS), also known as subcutaneous stimulation, offers a minimally invasive neuromodulation approach that may improve outcomes for these patients. This systematic review evaluates the evidence on PNFS, alone or combined with spinal cord stimulation (SCS), for CLBP, focusing on pain relief, functional outcomes, and safety. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, databases including Cochrane, Embase, MEDLINE (PubMed), and the Université Laval Library were searched for studies from January 2014 to April 2025. Nineteen studies (randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series) were included. Outcomes assessed included pain intensity, disability (Oswestry Disability Index), quality of life (36-Item Short Form Health Survey, EuroQol 5-Dimension), and adverse events. Across study-level estimates, PNFS monotherapy most commonly produced approximately 40% to 60% reductions in pain intensity, although reported effects varied across studies and were not pooled because of heterogeneity. Functional gains included reduced disability and improved mobility. Quality of life measures and medication use often improved. Peripheral nerve field stimulation combined with SCS yielded mixed results, providing benefits particularly for patients unresponsive to SCS alone. Reported complication rates were generally modest, with infections and lead migrations being the most common. Peripheral nerve field stimulation appears to be a promising and generally well-tolerated option for selected patients with CLBP, although evidence certainty remains limited, and larger controlled studies are needed.
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.