SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2026
Clinical applications of invasive spinal cord stimulation in neurological disorders: a narrative review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Invasive spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is used in selected patients with refractory chronic neuropathic pain and has also been explored in spinal cord injury, disorders of consciousness, and Parkinson's disease. However, the strength of evidence differs substantially across indications. This review summarizes the current clinical applications of invasive SCS and distinguishes relatively established pain indications from emerging neurological applications. Methods: We conducted a structured search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Wanfang, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. The search was supplemented by reference tracking for landmark studies and a targeted update of relevant publications from 2024 to 2026. Results: Randomized evidence is concentrated in chronic pain populations. Conventional SCS has shown benefit in selected patients with failed back surgery syndrome, while 10-kHz SCS produced greater pain reduction than conventional low-frequency stimulation in patients with chronic back and leg pain. Burst stimulation was noninferior to tonic stimulation in the SUNBURST trial and was preferred by most participants. Randomized evidence also supports 10-kHz SCS in refractory painful diabetic neuropathy. Evidence for complex regional pain syndrome suggests short- to intermediate-term pain relief, although long-term benefit remains uncertain. By contrast, applications in diabetic foot complications, spinal cord injury, and disorders of consciousness are supported mainly by small, heterogeneous, or uncontrolled studies. Recent blinded trials have not demonstrated a clear benefit of SCS for Parkinsonian gait impairment. Discussion: The clinical evidence supporting invasive SCS varies considerably across neurological indications. Its role is comparatively well supported in selected chronic neuropathic pain populations, particularly chronic back and leg pain after spinal surgery and painful diabetic neuropathy. Evidence for non-pain neurological disorders remains limited, and these applications should remain investigational until further controlled studies clarify patient selection, stimulation parameters, durability of response, and safety.
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.