Literature DB >> 32574787

Systematic Review of Research Methods and Reporting Quality of Randomized Clinical Trials of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Pain.

Ewan McNicol1, McKenzie Ferguson2, Kathleen Bungay3, Emily L Rowe4, Sam Eldabe5, Jennifer S Gewandter6, Salim M Hayek7, Nathaniel Katz8, Brian H Kopell9, John Markman10, Ali Rezai11, Rod S Taylor12, Dennis C Turk13, Robert H Dworkin6, Richard B North14, Simon Thomson15.   

Abstract

This systematic review assessed design characteristics and reporting quality of published randomized clinical trials of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for treatment of pain in adults and adolescents. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018090412). Relevant articles were identified by searching the following databases through December 31, 2018: MEDLINE, Embase, WikiStim, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Forty-six studies were included. Eighty-seven percent of articles identified a pain-related primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included physical functioning, health-related quality of life, and reductions in opioid use. Nineteen of the 46 studies prespecified adverse events as an outcome, with 4 assessing them as a primary outcome. Eleven studies stated that they blinded participants. Of these, only 5 were assessed as being adequately blinded. The number of participants enrolled was generally low (median 38) and study durations were short (median 12 weeks), particularly in studies of angina. Fifteen studies employed an intention-to-treat analysis, of which only seven specified a method to accommodate missing data. Review of these studies identified deficiencies in both reporting and methodology. The review's findings suggest areas for improving the design of future studies and increasing transparency of reporting. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents a systematic review of research methods and reporting quality of randomized clinical trials of SCS for the treatment of various pain complaints. The review identifies deficiencies in both methodology and reporting, which may inform the design of future studies and improve reporting standards.
Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical trials systematic review/meta analysis; Disc disease; Neuromodulation; Pain; Peripheral neuropathy

Year:  2020        PMID: 32574787     DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2020.05.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pain        ISSN: 1526-5900            Impact factor:   5.820


  3 in total

1.  Short- and long-term effects of conventional spinal cord stimulation on chronic pain and health perceptions: A longitudinal controlled trial.

Authors:  Silviu Brill; Ruth Defrin; Itay Goor Aryeh; Adva Meseritz Zusman; Yael Benyamini
Journal:  Eur J Pain       Date:  2022-07-07       Impact factor: 3.651

Review 2.  Implanted spinal neuromodulation interventions for chronic pain in adults.

Authors:  Neil E O'Connell; Michael C Ferraro; William Gibson; Andrew Sc Rice; Lene Vase; Doug Coyle; Christopher Eccleston
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-12-02

3.  A Comparison of 1000 Hz to 30 Hz Spinal Cord Stimulation Strategies in Patients with Unilateral Neuropathic Leg Pain Due to Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Crossover Clinical Study (HALO).

Authors:  Jennifer Breel; Frank Wille; Agnes G C L Wensing; Jan Willem Kallewaard; Harmen Pelleboer; Xander Zuidema; Katja Bürger; Stijn de Graaf; Markus W Hollmann
Journal:  Pain Ther       Date:  2021-06-06
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.