Return to Work of Patients Treated With Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Background Chronic pain has a substantial negative impact on work‐related outcomes, which underscores the importance of interventions to reduce the burden. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) efficiently causes pain relief in specific chronic pain syndromes. The aim of this review was to identify and summ...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Neuromodulation (Malden, Mass.) Mass.), 2019-04, Vol.22 (3), p.253-261
Hauptverfasser: Moens, Maarten, Goudman, Lisa, Brouns, Raf, Valenzuela Espinoza, Alexis, De Jaeger, Mats, Huysmans, Eva, Putman, Koen, Verlooy, Jan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Chronic pain has a substantial negative impact on work‐related outcomes, which underscores the importance of interventions to reduce the burden. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) efficiently causes pain relief in specific chronic pain syndromes. The aim of this review was to identify and summarize evidence on returning to work in patients with chronic pain treated with SCS. Materials and Methods A systematic literature review was performed including studies from PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science (up till October 2017). Risk of bias was assessed using a modified version of the Downs & Black checklist. Where possible, we pooled data using random effects meta‐analysis. The study protocol was registered prior to initiation of the review process (PROSPERO CRD42017077803). Results Fifteen full‐text articles (total articles screened: 2835) were included. Risk of bias for these articles was scored low. Seven trials provided sufficient data and were judged similar enough to be pooled for meta‐analysis on binary outcomes. SCS intervention results in a higher prevalence of patients at work compared with before treatment (odds ratio [OR] 2.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.44–3.21; I2 = 42%; p 
ISSN:1094-7159
1525-1403
DOI:10.1111/ner.12797