Spinal cord stimulation versus re-operation in patients with failed Back Surgery Syndrome: An international multicenter randomized controlled trial (EVIDENCE Study)

Neuromodulation

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 330-336

  North, Richard B ^a   Kumar, Krishna ^b   Wallace, Mark S ^c   Henderson, Jaimie M ^d   Shipley, Jane ^e   Hernandez, John ^f   Mekel Bobrov, Nitzan ^f   Jaax, Kristen N ^f  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b REGINA GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^c UCSD MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e Neuromodulation Foundation   (United States)

^f BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical trial protocol; cost effectiveness; failed back surgery syndrome; randomized controlled trial; re operation; spinal cord stimulation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; EMPLOYMENT STATUS; FAILED BACK SURGERY SYNDROME; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LEG PAIN; LOW BACK PAIN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PARESTHESIA; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PULSE GENERATOR; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REOPERATION; SPINAL CORD STIMULATION; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT FAILURE;

EID: 80051544897     PISSN: 10947159     EISSN: 15251403     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1403.2011.00371.x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Sox HC, Helfand M, Grimshaw J, et al,. Comparative effectiveness research: challenges for medical journals. Med Decis Making 2010; 30: 301-303.
2. Godlee F,. Publishing study protocols: making them visible will improve registration, reporting and recruitment. BMC News Views 2001; 2: 4.
3. Silagy CA, Middleton P, Hopewell S,. Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA 2002; 287: 2831-2834. (Pubitemid 34591977)
4. North RB, Kidd DH, Farrokhi F, Piantadosi SA,. Spinal cord stimulation versus repeated lumbosacral spine surgery for chronic pain: a randomized, controlled trial. Neurosurgery 2005; 56: 98-107.
5. North RB, Kidd D, Shipley J, Taylor RS,. Spinal cord stimulation versus reoperation for failed back surgery syndrome: a cost effectiveness and cost utility analysis based on a randomized, controlled trial. Neurosurgery 2007; 61: 361-369.
6. Kumar K, Taylor RS, Jacques L, et al,. Spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management for neuropathic pain: a multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with failed back surgery syndrome. Pain 2007; 32: 179-188. (Pubitemid 47500132)
7. Kumar K, Taylor RS, Jacques L, et al,. The effects of spinal cord stimulation in neuropathic pain are sustained: a 24-month follow-up of the prospective randomized controlled multicenter trial of the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation. Neurosurgery 2008; 63: 762-768.
8. Bogduk N, Fraifeld EM,. Proof or consequences: who shall pay for the evidence in pain medicine? Pain Med 2010; 11: 1-2.
9. O'Connor AB,. Neuropathic pain: quality-of-life impact, costs and cost effectiveness of therapy. Pharmacoeconomics 2009; 27: 95-112.
10. Turner JA, Loeser JD, Deyo RA, Sanders SB,. Spinal cord stimulation for patients with failed back surgery syndrome or complex regional pain syndrome: a systematic review of effectiveness and complications. Pain 2004; 108: 137-147. (Pubitemid 38251683)
11. Renard VM, North RB,. Prevention of percutaneous electrode migration in spinal cord stimulation by a modification of the standard implantation technique. J Neurosurg Spine 2006; 4: 300-303. (Pubitemid 47325459)
12. Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS, Polsky D,. Economic evaluation in clinical trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
13. Ramsey S, Willke R, Briggs A, et al,. Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. Value Health 2005; 8: 521-533. (Pubitemid 41727304)
14. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO, for the BMJ Working Party on Guidelines for Authors and Peer-Reviewers of Economic Submissions to the British Medical Journal. Guidelines for authors and peer-reviewers of economic submissions to the British Medical Journal. BMJ 1996; 313: 275-383.
15. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR,. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analysis. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996; 276: 1339-1344.
16. Doshi JA, Glick HA, Polsky D,. Analysis of cost data in economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized controlled trials. Value Health 2006; 9: 334-340. (Pubitemid 44337786)
17. Reed SD, Anstrom KJ, Bakhai A, et al,. Conducting economic evaluations alongside multinational clinical trials: toward a research consensus. Am Heart J 2005; 149: 434-443. (Pubitemid 40585405)
18. Wilke RJ, Glick HA, Polsky D, Schulman K,. Estimating country-specific cost-effectiveness from multinational clinical trials. Health Econ 1998; 7: 481-493. (Pubitemid 28479419)
19. North RB, Shipley J, Taylor RS, Eldabe S,. Questions about Turner et al. Spinal cord stimulation for failed back surgery syndrome: outcomes in a worker's compensation setting. Pain 2010; 151: 550-551.
20. Turner JA, Hollingworth W, Comstock BA, Deyo RA,. Spinal cord stimulation for failed back surgery syndrome: outcomes in a worker's compensation setting. Pain 2010; 148: 14-151.
21. Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, et al,. Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ 2004; 170: 477-480. (Pubitemid 38293642)