Applicability and Validity of an e-Health Tool for the Appropriate Referral and Selection of Patients With Chronic Pain for Spinal Cord Stimulation: Results From a European Retrospective Study
Rattachement africain : nl, gb, fr, be, it, se, de. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
OBJECTIVES: To support rational decision-making on spinal cord stimulation (SCS), a European expert panel developed an educational e-health tool using the RAND/University of California at Los Angeles Appropriateness Method. This retrospective study aimed to determine the applicability and validity of the tool using data from patients for whom SCS had been considered. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 12 European implant centers retrieved data from 25 to 50 consecutive patients for whom SCS was considered in 2018-2019. For each patient, data were captured on the clinical and psychosocial variables included in the e-health tool, center decisions on SCS, and patient outcomes. Patient outcomes included global perception of effect by the patient and observer, and pain reduction (numeric pain rating scale) at six-month follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 483 patients were included, of whom 133 received a direct implant, 258 received an implant after a positive trial, 32 had a negative trial, and 60 did not receive SCS for reasons other than a negative trial. The most frequent indication was persistent spinal pain syndrome type 1 and type 2 (74%), followed by neuropathic pain syndromes (13%), complex regional pain syndrome (12%), and ischemic pain syndromes (0.8%). Data on the clinical and psychosocial variables were complete for 95% and 93% of patients, respectively, and missing data did not have a significant impact on the study outcomes. In patients who had received SCS, panel recommendations were significantly associated with patient outcomes (p < 0.001 for all measures). Substantial improvement ranged from 25% if the e-health tool outcome was "not recommended" to 83% if SCS was "strongly recommended". In patients who underwent a trial (N = 290), there was 3% of trial failure when SCS was "strongly recommended" vs 46% when SCS was "not recommended". CONCLUSIONS: Retrospective application of the e-health tool on patient data showed a strong relationship between the panel recommendations and both SCS trial results and treatment outcomes.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Applicability and Validity of an e-Health Tool for the Appropriate Referral and Selection of Patients With Chronic Pain for Spinal Cord Stimulation: Results From a European Retrospective Study
- Date Crossref
- 01/01/2023
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Où se fait cette recherche
-
Erasmus MC pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
Fondation Ophtalmologique Adolphe de Rothschild Department of Neurosurgery pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
AZ Delta pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
James Cook University Hospital Department of Pain Medicine pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
Ospedale Santa Chiara pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
Sahlgrenska University Hospital Department of Neurosurgery pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
Amsterdam University Medical Centers Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Management pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
Rijnstate Hospital Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Management pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
University of Amsterdam pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
Erasmus MC, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust et Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, avec 9 autres affiliations.
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.