Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,184

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management for neuropathic pain: A multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with failed back surgery syndrome

Kumar, Krishna, Taylor, Rod S., Jacques, Line, Eldabe, Sam, Meglio, Mario, Molet, Joan, Thomson, Simon, O’Callaghan, Jim, Eisenberg, Elon, Milbouw, Germain, Buchser, Eric, Fortini, Gianpaolo, Richardson, Jonathan, North, Richard B.·2007·Pain

Abstract

Patients with neuropathic pain secondary to failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) typically experience persistent pain, disability, and reduced quality of life. We hypothesised that spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy in addition to conventional medical management (CMM) in this patient population. We randomised 100 FBSS patients with predominant leg pain of neuropathic radicular origin to receive spinal cord stimulation plus conventional medical management (SCS group) or conventional medical management alone (CMM group) for at least 6 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving 50% or more pain relief in the legs. Secondary outcomes were improvement in back and leg pain, health-related quality of life, functional capacity, use of pain medication and non-drug pain treatment, level of patient satisfaction, and incidence of complications and adverse effects. Crossover after the 6-months visit was permitted, and all patients were followed up to 1 year. In the intention-to-treat analysis at 6 months, 24 SCS patients (48%) and 4 CMM patients (9%) (p < 0.001) achieved the primary outcome. Compared with the CMM group, the SCS group experienced improved leg and back pain relief, quality of life, and functional capacity, as well as greater treatment satisfaction (p ≤ 0.05 for all comparisons). Between 6 and 12 months, 5 SCS patients crossed to CMM, and 32 CMM patients crossed to SCS. At 12 months, 27 SCS patients (32%) had experienced device-related complications. In selected patients with FBSS, SCS provides better pain relief and improves health-related quality of life and functional capacity compared with CMM alone.

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.2007.07.028

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 1,184

Metadata

Authors
Kumar, K., Taylor, R. S., Jacques, L., Eldabe, S., Meglio, M., Molet, J., Thomson, S., O’Callaghan, J., Eisenberg, E., Milbouw, G., Buchser, E., Fortini, G., Richardson, J., & North, R. B.
Venue
Pain
Published
2007-11
Volume
132
Issue
1
Pages
179-188
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2051479003
Cited by
1,184
References
1
FWCI
40.70
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 versus conventional medical management for neuropathic pain: A multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with failed back surgery syndrome. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.pain.2007.07.028
The paper
Kumar, K., Taylor, R. S., Jacques, L., Eldabe, S., Meglio, M., Molet, J., Thomson, S., O’Callaghan, J., Eisenberg, E., Milbouw, G., Buchser, E., Fortini, G., Richardson, J., & North, R. B. (2007). Spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management for neuropathic pain: A multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with failed back surgery syndrome. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2007.07.028

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.