Quality of life, resource consumption and costs of spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management in neuropathic pain patients with failed back surgery syndrome (PROCESS trial)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic back and leg pain conditions result in patients' loss of function, reduced quality of life and increased costs to the society. AIMS: To assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost implications of spinal cord stimulation plus non-surgical conventional medical management (SCS group) versus non-surgical conventional medical management alone (CMM group) in the management of neuropathic pain in patients with failed back surgery syndrome. METHODS: A total of 100 patients were randomised to either the SCS or CMM group. Healthcare resource consumption data relating to screening, the use of the implantable generator in SCS patients, hospital stay, and drug and non-drug pain-related treatment were collected prospectively. Resource consumption was costed using UK and Canadian 2005-2006 national figures. HRQoL was assessed using the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Costs and outcomes were assessed for each patient over their first 6-months of the trial. RESULTS: The 6-month mean total healthcare cost in the SCS group (CAN$19,486; 12,653 euros) was significantly higher than in the CMM group (CAN$3994; 2594 euros), with a mean adjusted difference of CAN$15,395 (9997 euros) (p<0.001). However, the gain in HRQoL with SCS over the same period of time was markedly greater in the SCS group, with a mean EQ-5D score difference of 0.25 [p<0.001] and 0.21 [p<0.001], respectively at 3- and 6-months after adjusting for baseline variables. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of SCS to CMM in patients with neuropathic leg and back pain results in higher costs to health systems but also generates important improvements in patients' EQ-5D over the same period.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".