The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effects of Rate on Analgesia in Kilohertz Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation: Results of the PROCO Randomized Controlled Trial
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: The PROCO RCT is a multicenter, double-blind, crossover, randomized controlled trial (RCT) that investigated the effects of rate on analgesia in kilohertz frequency (1-10 kHz) spinal cord stimulation (SCS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were implanted with SCS systems and underwent an eight-week search to identify the best location ("sweet spot") of stimulation at 10 kHz within the searched region (T8-T11). An electronic diary (e-diary) prompted patients for pain scores three times per day. Patients who responded to 10 kHz per e-diary numeric rating scale (ED-NRS) pain scores proceeded to double-blind rate randomization. Patients received 1, 4, 7, and 10 kHz SCS at the same sweet spot found for 10 kHz in randomized order (four weeks at each frequency). For each frequency, pulse width and amplitude were titrated to optimize therapy. RESULTS: All frequencies provided equivalent pain relief as measured by ED-NRS (p ≤ 0.002). However, mean charge per second differed across frequencies, with 1 kHz SCS requiring 60-70% less charge than higher frequencies (p ≤ 0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: The PROCO RCT provides Level I evidence for equivalent pain relief from 1 to 10 kHz with appropriate titration of pulse width and amplitude. 1 kHz required significantly less charge than higher frequencies.
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
Neuronal plasticity: Increasing the gain in pain
Woolf, C. J., & Salter, M. W. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.288.5472.1765 · Cited by 3,781
Psychosomatic medicine in Germany: more timely than ever
Zipfel, S., Herzog, W., Kruse, J., & Henningsen, P. (2016) · Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics · doi:10.1159/000447701 · Cited by 2,323
Redelmeier, D. A., & Kahneman, D. (1996) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(96)02994-6 · Cited by 1,078
Getting the pain you expect: mechanisms of placebo, nocebo and reappraisal effects in humans
Tracey, I. (2010) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/nm.2229 · Cited by 553
Altered Placebo and Drug Labeling Changes the Outcome of Episodic Migraine Attacks
Kam-Hansen, S., Jakubowski, M., Kelley, J. M., Kirsch, I., Hoaglin, D. C., Kaptchuk, T. J., & Burstein, R. (2014) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3006175 · Cited by 399
Schedlowski, M., Enck, P., Rief, W., & Bingel, U. (2015) · Pharmacological Reviews · doi:10.1124/pr.114.009423 · Cited by 323
Stone, A. A., Broderick, J. E., Schwartz, J. E., Shiffman, S., Litcher-Kelly, L., & Calvanese, P. (2003) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(03)00040-x · Cited by 293
Cited by
The neuropathic pain: An overview of the current treatment and future therapeutic approaches
Cavalli, E., Mammana, S., Nicoletti, F., Bramanti, P., & Mazzon, E. (2019) · International Journal of Immunopathology and Pharmacology · doi:10.1177/2058738419838383 · Cited by 499
Spinal Cord Stimulation: Clinical Efficacy and Potential Mechanisms
Sdrulla, A. D., Guan, Y., & Raja, S. N. (2018) · Pain Practice · doi:10.1111/papr.12692 · Cited by 375
The Future of Pain Management and Research: A Dose of Fatalism May Be Good for One's Health
Fraser, J. L. (2019) · Pain Medicine · doi:10.1093/pm/pnz047 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Thomson, S. J., Tavakkolizadeh, M., Love-Jones, S., Patel, N. K., Gu, J. W., Bains, A., Doan, Q., & Moffitt, M.
- Venue
- Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-01
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 67-76
- ISSN
- 1094-7159 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2773756920
- Cited by
- 172
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 26.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
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.