The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Spinal cord stimulation for complex regional pain syndrome: A systematic review of the clinical and cost‐effectiveness literature and assessment of prognostic factors
Abstract
Objective To review the clinical and cost‐effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the management of patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and identify the potential predictors of SCS outcome. Design Systematic review of the literature and meta‐regression. Methods Electronic databases were searched for controlled and uncontrolled studies and economic evaluations relating to the use of SCS in patients with either CRPS type I or II. Results One randomised controlled trial, 25 case series and one cost‐effectiveness study were included. In the randomised controlled trial in type I CRPS patients, SCS therapy lead to a reduction in pain intensity at 24 months of follow‐up (mean change in VAS score −2.0), whereas pain was unchanged in the control group (mean change in VAS score 0.0) (p < 0.001). In the case series studies, 67% (95% CI 51%, 84%) of type I and type II CRPS patients implanted with SCS reported pain relief of at least 50% over a median follow‐up period of 33 months. No statistically significant predictors of pain relief with SCS were observed in multivariate meta‐regression analysis across studies. An economic analysis based on the randomised controlled trial showed a lifetime cost saving of approximately €58,470 (US$60,800) with SCS plus physical therapy compared with physical therapy alone. The mean cost per quality‐adjusted life‐year at 12‐month follow‐up was €22,580 (US$23,480). Conclusions SCS appears to be an effective therapy in the management of patients with CRPS type I (Level A evidence) and type II (Level D evidence). Moreover, there is evidence to demonstrate that SCS is a cost‐effective treatment for CRPS type I.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., & Phillips, A. N. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7121.1533 · Cited by 2,415
Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: IX. A Method for Grading Health Care Recommendations
Guyatt, G. H. (1995) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03530220066035 · Cited by 846
Complex Regional Pain Syndromes: Guidelines for Therapy
Stanton-Hicks, M., Baron, R., Boas, R., Gordh, T., Harden, N., Hendler, N., Koltzenburg, M., Raj, P., & Wilder, R. (1998) · The Clinical Journal of Pain · doi:10.1097/00002508-199806000-00012 · Cited by 378
Cited by
Eldabe, S., Buchser, E., & Duarte, R. V. (2016) · Pain Medicine · doi:10.1093/pm/pnv025 · Cited by 403
Self-citationRetrospective Review of 707 Cases of Spinal Cord Stimulation: Indications and Complications
Mekhail, N. A., Mathews, M., Nageeb, F., Guirguis, M., Mekhail, M. N., & Cheng, J. (2011) · Pain Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1533-2500.2010.00407.x · Cited by 332
Metadata
- Authors
- Taylor, R. S., Van Buyten, J., & Buchser, E.
- Venue
- European Journal of Pain
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-02
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 91-91
- ISSN
- 1090-3801 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-2149
- OpenAlex
- W2061702272
- Cited by
- 276
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 2.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Spinal cord stimulation for complex regional pain syndrome: A systematic review of the clinical and cost‐effectiveness literature and assessment of prognostic factors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.02.004
- The paper
- Taylor, R. S., Van Buyten, J., & Buchser, E. (2006). Spinal cord stimulation for complex regional pain syndrome: A systematic review of the clinical and cost‐effectiveness literature and assessment of prognostic factors. European Journal of Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.02.004
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.