For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
22
views
36
references
 Top references
cited by
16
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      122
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Spinal Cord Stimulation for Refractory Angina Pectoris: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Paresthesia-free stimulation such as high frequency and burst have been demonstrated as effective therapies for neuropathic pain. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of conventional spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the treatment of refractory angina pectoris (RAP).

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The problem of chronic refractory angina; report from the ESC Joint Study Group on the Treatment of Refractory Angina.

          P Camici, C Mannheimer, F Follath … (2002)
          Article 0 comments Cited 76 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals.

            Bruce Cook, M Moher, Alejandro Jadad … (1998)
            Review articles are important sources of information to help guide decisions by clinicians, patients, and other decision makers. Ideally, reviews should include strategies to minimize bias and to maximize precision and be reported so explicitly that any interested reader would be able to replicate them. To compare the methodological and reporting aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published by the Cochrane Collaboration with those published in paper-based journals indexed in MEDLINE. The Cochrane Library, issue 2 of 1995, and a search of MEDLINE restricted to 1995. All 36 completed reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and a randomly selected sample of 39 meta-analyses or systematic reviews published in journals indexed by MEDLINE in 1995. Number of authors, trials, and patients; trial sources; inclusion and exclusion criteria; language restrictions; primary outcome; trial quality assessment; heterogeneity testing; and effect estimates. Updating by 1997 was evaluated. Reviews found in MEDLINE included more authors (median, 3 vs 2; P<.001), more trials (median, 13.5 vs 5; P<.001), and more patients (median, 1280 vs 528; P<.001) than Cochrane reviews. More Cochrane reviews, however, included a description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria (35/36 vs 18/39; P<.001) and assessed trial quality (36/36 vs 12/39; P<.001). No Cochrane reviews had language restrictions (0/36 vs 7/39; P<.01). There were no differences in sources of trials, heterogeneity testing, or description of effect estimates. By June 1997, 18 of 36 Cochrane reviews had been updated vs 1 of 39 reviews listed in MEDLINE. Cochrane reviews appear to have greater methodological rigor and are more frequently updated than systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in paper-based journals.
            Article 0 comments Cited 67 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Direct injection into the dorsal root ganglion: technical, behavioral, and histological observations.

              Hiroyuki Nakai, Damir Sapunar, Hongwei Yu … (2011)
              Direct injection of agents into the dorsal root ganglia (DRGs) offers the opportunity to manipulate sensory neuron function at a segmental level to explore pathophysiology of painful conditions. However, there is no described method that has been validated in detail for such injections in adult rats. We have found that 2 μl of dye injected through a pulled glass pipette directly into the distal DRG, exposed by a minimal foraminotomy, produces complete filling of the DRG with limited extension into the spinal roots. Injection into the spinal nerve required 3 μl to achieve comparable DRG filling, produced preferential spread into the ventral root, and was accompanied by substantial leakage of injected solution from the injection site. Injections into the sciatic nerve of volumes up to 10 μl did not reach the DRG. Transient hypersensitivity to mechanical stimulation at threshold (von Frey) and noxious levels (pin) developed after 2 μl saline injection directly into the DRG that was in part attributable to the surgical exposure procedure alone. Only minimal astrocyte activation in the spinal dorsal horn was evident after DRG saline injections. Injection of adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector conveying green fluorescent protein (GFP) transgene resulted in expression as soon as 1 day after injection into the DRG, including fibers in the spinal dorsal horn and columns. AAV injection into the DRG produced additional thermal hypersensitivity and withdrawal from the stroke of a brush and compromised motor performance. These findings demonstrate a method for selective injection of agents into single DRGs for anatomically restricted actions. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
              Article 0 comments Cited 46 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Clin J Pain
                Title: The Clinical journal of pain
                Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                ISSN (Electronic): 1536-5409
                ISSN (Print): 0749-8047
                Publication date (Electronic): Jun 2017
                Volume: 33
                Issue: 6
                Affiliations
                [1 ] *Department of Clinical Medicine, Nanjing Medical University †Department of Anesthesiology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China.
                Article
                DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000435
                PMC ID: 5417578
                PubMed ID: 27875377
                SO-VID: 98f8f621-556b-4248-99e9-5c6a09767c45
                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content122

                See all similar

                Cited by16

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,172

                See all reference authors