ReviewSurgical neurology international2025
The efficacy of neurostimulation techniques for the management of chronic pain associated with bone disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Surgical neurology international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The management of chronic pain associated with bone problems has been accomplished by the use of neurostimulation methods, such as spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS). It is still unknown, however, how successful they are in comparison. The effectiveness of SCS and PNS in reducing chronic pain and enhancing functional results in patients with chronic pain related to bone abnormalities was assessed in this comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Methods: To find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SCS or PNS to standard medical management or placebo/sham treatment in adults with chronic pain related to bone disorders, a comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov was carried out from the start of the database until February 2024. The main result was the absence of discomfort. Opioid usage, functional status, and quality of life were secondary outcomes. The Cochrane technique was used to evaluate bias risk. The risk ratios (RRs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed using random effects meta-analysis. Results: We included 20 RCTs with a total of 2576 participants. In short-term (≤6 months) follow-up, SCS and PNS were both associated with substantially higher pain alleviation than conventional medical care or placebo/sham: SCS SMD -0.87 (95% CI -1.19--0.55), PNS SMD -0.56 (95% CI -0.91-0.21). SCS SMD -0.71 (95% CI -1.05--0.37) and PNS SMD -0.60 (95% CI -1.03--0.17) benefits were maintained at long-term (>6 months) follow-up. The physical and emotional functioning, as well as quality of life, were also markedly enhanced by SCS and PNS. It was shown that SCS (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.74) and PNS (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.77) reduced the risk of opioid usage. Conclusion: When it comes to improving functionality and quality of life, SCS and PNS both reduce chronic pain linked to bone problems, both temporarily and permanently. In some individuals, SCS and PNS may assist in lowering opioid consumption. Neurostimulation treatments may be useful in the treatment of persistent pain associated with bone diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.