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 Chronic Back and Leg Pain and Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Analysis of Prognostic Factors
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. Systematic review. Objectives. To assess efficacy and safety of spinal cord stimulation in patients with chronic leg and back pain and failed back surgery syndrome and to examine prognostic factors that predict spinal cord stimulation outcome. Summary of Background Data. A previous systematic review of spinal cord stimulation in patients with chronic back and leg pain and failed back surgery syndrome by Turner et al in 1995 identified 39 case studies and no controlled studies. Methods. A number of electronic databases were searched through January 2002. Citation searching of included papers was undertaken, and gray literature was sought through contact with clinical experts. No language restrictions were applied. All controlled and noncontrolled study designs were included. Study selection was carried out independently by two reviewers. Prognostic factors (age, sex, duration of pain, time post surgery, follow-up duration, publication year, data collection year, indication, data collection country, study setting, and quality score) responsible for pain relief outcome across case series were examined using univariate and multivariate metaregression. Results. One randomized controlled trial, one cohort study, and 72 case studies were included. The randomized controlled trial reported a significant benefit (P = 0.047) in the proportion of patients with failed back surgery syndrome reporting 50% or more pain relief with spinal cord stimulation (37.5%) compared with patients undergoing back reoperation (11.5%). There was evidence of substantial statistical heterogeneity (P < 0.0001) in the level of pain relief following spinal cord stimulation reported across case series studies. The four principal prognostic factors found to be predictive of increased level of pain relief with spinal cord stimulation were poor study quality score, short follow-up duration, multicenter (versus single center) studies, and the inclusion of patients with failed back surgery syndrome (versus chronic back and leg pain). Overall, 43% of patients with chronic back and leg pain/failed back surgery syndrome experienced one or more complications following a spinal cord stimulation implant, although no major adverse events were reported. Conclusions. Despite an increase in the number of studies over the last 10 years, the level of evidence for the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation in chronic back and leg pain/failed back surgery syndrome remains “moderate.” Prognostic factors found to be predictive of the level of pain relief following spinal cord stimulation were study quality, follow-up duration, study setting, and patient indication. Over the last decade, there has been a substantial increase in the number of studies that have assessed the impact spinal cord stimulation in patients with chronic back and leg pain and failed back surgery syndrome. Nevertheless, as the majority of these studies are uncontrolled, with only one randomized controlled trial, the level of evidence for spinal cord stimulation for chronic back and leg pain is “moderate.” Four prognostic factors were found to be predictive of the level of pain relief following spinal cord stimulation: study quality, duration of follow-up review, study setting, and patient indication.
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
Updated Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group
van Tulder, M., Furlan, A., Bombardier, C., & Bouter, L. (2003) · Spine · doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000065484.95996.af · Cited by 2,180
Cited by
Treatment of chronic non-cancer pain
Turk, D. C., Wilson, H. D., & Cahana, A. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60402-9 · Cited by 716
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
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
Mindfulness-based interventions for chronic pain: a systematic review of the evidence
Chiesa, A., & Serretti, A. (2011) · The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine · doi:10.1089/acm.2009.0546 · Cited by 374
Metadata
- Authors
- Taylor, R. S., Van Buyten, J.-P., & Buchser, E.
- Venue
- Spine
- Published
- 2005-01
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 152-160
- ISSN
- 0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W220112480
- Cited by
- 337
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 3.80
- 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 Chronic Back and Leg Pain and Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Analysis of Prognostic Factors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.brs.0000149199.68381.fe
- The paper
- Taylor, R. S., Van Buyten, J.-P., & Buchser, E. (2005). Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Back and Leg Pain and Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Analysis of Prognostic Factors. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000149199.68381.fe
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.