Spinal Cord Stimulation Provides Pain Relief with Improved Psychosocial Function: Results from EMP<sup>3</sup>OWER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: OWER™ study evaluated spinal cord stimulation (SCS) safety and efficacy and the associated changes in psychosocial and functional outcomes. METHODS: Upon informed consent and IRB approval, 620 eligible subjects were enrolled prior to SCS trial evaluation and were assessed at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months post-implant. Patient-reported pain relief (PRP), numerical rating scale (NRS), satisfaction, quality of life (QOL), and pain disability index (PDI) were assessed at all follow-up visits while the pain catastrophizing scale (PCS), short form-36 (SF-36), short form-McGill pain questionnaire version 2 (SF-MPQ-2), and the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI) were assessed at the 6- and 12-month follow-up visits. Device and/or procedure-related adverse events were also recorded and reported. Subjects reporting a PRP ≥ 50% were considered responders. Repeated measures analysis of variance (RMANOVA) examined the changes across time for all continuous measures. RESULTS: A total of 401 (71%) subjects received a permanent implant. Mean (±SD) patient-reported pain relief was 59.3% (±26.2), 59.2% (±28.9), and 58.2% (±32.0) at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. A majority of enrolled subjects were responders at 3 (75.5%), 6 (74.7%), and 12 months (69.7%). RMANOVA revealed a statistically significant change for NRS, PCS, PDI, SF-36, SF-MPQ-2, and STAI scores. At 3 months, the majority of subjects (85.7%) were either very satisfied or satisfied with their device, with similar results at 6 and 12 months. At 3 months, the majority of subjects (73.3%) reported greatly improved or improved QOL with similar results at 6 and 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal cord stimulation provided pain relief and significant improvement of patient psychological and functional outcome measures.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".