Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 544

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Spinal cord stimulation for patients with failed back surgery syndrome or complex regional pain syndrome: a systematic review of effectiveness and complications

Turner, Judith A, Loeser, John D, Deyo, Richard A, Sanders, Stacy B·2004·Pain

Abstract

We conducted a systematic review of the literature on the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in relieving pain and improving functioning for patients with failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). We also reviewed SCS complications. Literature searches yielded 583 articles, of which seven met the inclusion criteria for the review of SCS effectiveness, and 15 others met the criteria only for the review of SCS complications. Two authors independently extracted data from each article, and then resolved discrepancies by discussion. We identified only one randomized trial, which found that physical therapy (PT) plus SCS, compared with PT alone, had a statistically significant but clinically modest effect at 6 and 12 months in relieving pain among patients with CRPS. Similarly, six other studies of much lower methodological quality suggest mild to moderate improvement in pain with SCS. Pain relief with SCS appears to decrease over time. The one randomized trial suggested no benefits of SCS in improving patient functioning. Although life-threatening complications with SCS are rare, other adverse events are frequent. On average, 34% of patients who received a stimulator had an adverse occurrence. We conclude with suggestions for methodologically stronger studies to provide more definitive data regarding the effectiveness of SCS in relieving pain and improving functioning, short- and long-term, among patients with chronic pain syndromes.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pain.2003.12.016

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 544

Metadata

Authors
Turner, J. A., Loeser, J. D., Deyo, R. A., & Sanders, S. B.
Venue
Pain
Published
2004-03
Volume
108
Issue
1
Pages
137-147
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2112689400
Cited by
544
References
2
FWCI
3.12
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 patients with failed back surgery syndrome or complex regional pain syndrome: a systematic review of effectiveness and complications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.pain.2003.12.016
The paper
Turner, J. A., Loeser, J. D., Deyo, R. A., & Sanders, S. B. (2004). Spinal cord stimulation for patients with failed back surgery syndrome or complex regional pain syndrome: a systematic review of effectiveness and complications. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2003.12.016

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.