2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Randomized Placebo‐/Sham‐Controlled Trials of Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Methodological Appraisal

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          Objectives

          The recent availability of paraesthesia/sensation free spinal cord stimulation (SCS) modalities allow the design of clinical trials of SCS using placebo/sham controls and blinding of patients, clinicians, and researchers. The aims of this study were to: 1) systematically review the current evidence base of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SCS placebo/sham trials and 2) to undertake a methodological critique of their methods. Based on this critique, we developed a checklist for the design and reporting of future RCTs of SCS.

          Materials and Methods

          Electronic data bases were searched from inception until January 2019 for RCTs of SCS using a placebo/sham control. RCTs with only an active comparator arm were excluded. The results are presented as a narrative synthesis.

          Results

          Searches identified 12 eligible RCTs. SCS modalities included paraesthesia stimulation, subthreshold, burst, and high‐frequency SCS and were mainly conducted in patients with failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, and refractory angina. The quality and transparency of reporting of the methods of placebo stimulation, blinding of patients, clinicians, and researchers varied markedly across studies.

          Conclusions

          To date the methods of placebo/sham control and blinding in RCTs have been poorly reported, leading to concerns about the validity and replicability of the findings. Important aspects that need to be clearly reported in the design of placebo‐/sham‐controlled RCTs of SCS include the transparent reporting of stimulation programming parameters, patient position during perception threshold measurement, management of the patient handheld programmer, frequency of recharging, and assessment of the fidelity of blinding.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

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

          Novel 10-kHz High-frequency Therapy (HF10 Therapy) Is Superior to Traditional Low-frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Back and Leg Pain: The SENZA-RCT Randomized Controlled Trial.

          Current treatments for chronic pain have limited effectiveness and commonly known side effects. Given the prevalence and burden of intractable pain, additional therapeutic approaches are desired. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) delivered at 10 kHz (as in HF10 therapy) may provide pain relief without the paresthesias typical of traditional low-frequency SCS. The objective of this randomized, parallel-arm, noninferiority study was to compare long-term safety and efficacy of SCS therapies in patients with back and leg pain.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Dorsal root ganglion stimulation yielded higher treatment success rate for complex regional pain syndrome and causalgia at 3 and 12 months: a randomized comparative trial

            A comparative effectiveness trial indicates that dorsal root ganglion stimulation provided a higher rate of treatment success with less postural variation in paresthesia intensity compared to spinal cord stimulation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Do medical devices have enhanced placebo effects?

              Although the placebo in a clinical trial is often considered simply a baseline against which to evaluate the efficacy of a clinical intervention, there is evidence that the magnitude of placebo effect may be a critical factor in determining the results of a trial. This article examines the question of whether devices have enhanced placebo effects and, if so, what the implications may be. While the evidence of an enhanced placebo effect remains rudimentary, it is provocative and therefore worthy of further study. Suggestions are made, therefore, for how such an effect can be investigated without violating the principles of informed consent.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                rui.duarte@liverpool.ac.uk
                Journal
                Neuromodulation
                Neuromodulation
                10.1111/(ISSN)1525-1403
                NER
                Neuromodulation
                John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (Hoboken, USA )
                1094-7159
                1525-1403
                15 July 2019
                January 2020
                : 23
                : 1 ( doiID: 10.1111/ner.v23.1 )
                : 10-18
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group University of Liverpool Liverpool UK
                [ 2 ] Department of Pharmacy Practice MCPHS University Boston MA USA
                [ 3 ] Department of Pain Medicine Atrius Health Boston MA USA
                [ 4 ] Department of Pain and Translational Symptom Science, School of Nursing University of Maryland Baltimore MD USA
                [ 5 ] Department of Anesthesiology and Psychiatry, School of Medicine University of Maryland, Baltimore, University of Maryland Baltimore MD USA
                [ 6 ] Center to Advance Chronic Pain Research University of Maryland Baltimore MD USA
                [ 7 ] Institute of Health and Well Being University of Glasgow Glasgow UK
                [ 8 ] College of Medicine and Health University of Exeter Exeter UK
                [ 9 ] Neurosurgery, Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine (ret.) Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore MD USA
                [ 10 ] Department of Pain Medicine The James Cook University Hospital Middlesbrough UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ]Address correspondence to: Rui V. Duarte, Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Whelan Building, Liverpool L69 3GB, UK. Email: rui.duarte@ 123456liverpool.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6485-7415
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7360-3641
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9250-1886
                Article
                NER13018
                10.1111/ner.13018
                7004207
                31305001
                9c98c3a8-0e76-4061-91f9-d4e4a0c63607
                © 2019 The Authors. Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Neuromodulation Society.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 17 March 2019
                : 30 April 2019
                : 04 June 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 4, Pages: 9, Words: 7210
                Categories
                Review Article
                SPINAL CORD STIMULATION
                Review Articles
                Editor's Choice
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                January 2020
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.7.5 mode:remove_FC converted:06.02.2020

                placebo,randomized controlled trials,sham,spinal cord stimulation,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article