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
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.
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
Fairbank, J. C. T., & Pynsent, P. B. (2000) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017 · Cited by 5,851
Cited by
Chou, R., Loeser, J. D., Owens, D. K., Rosenquist, R. W., Atlas, S. J., Baisden, J., Carragee, E. J., Grabois, M., Murphy, D. R., Resnick, D. K., et al. (2009) · Spine · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181a1390d · Cited by 581
Kapural, L., Yu, C., Doust, M. W., Gliner, B. E., Vallejo, R., Sitzman, B. T., Amirdelfan, K., Morgan, D. M., Yearwood, T. L., Bundschu, R., et al. (2016) · Neurosurgery · doi:10.1227/neu.0000000000001418 · Cited by 470
Eldabe, S., Buchser, E., & Duarte, R. V. (2016) · Pain Medicine · doi:10.1093/pm/pnv025 · Cited by 403
Self-citationChou, R., Atlas, S. J., Stanos, S. P., & Rosenquist, R. W. (2009) · Spine · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181a103b1 · Cited by 392
Celestin, J., Edwards, R. R., & Jamison, R. N. (2009) · Pain Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1526-4637.2009.00632.x · Cited by 368
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.