Psychological Screening/Phenotyping as Predictors for Spinal Cord Stimulation
Abstract Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is becoming a widely used treatment for a number of pain conditions and is frequently considered as a pain management option when conservative or less invasive techniques have proven to be ineffective. Potential indications for SCS include complex regional pain...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Campbell, Claudia M. [verfasserIn] Jamison, Robert N. [verfasserIn] Edwards, Robert R. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2012 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Current Review of Pain - Current Medicine Group, 1998, 17(2012), 1 vom: 18. Dez. |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:17 ; year:2012 ; number:1 ; day:18 ; month:12 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s11916-012-0307-6 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
SPR023008873 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | SPR023008873 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230520013011.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 201006s2012 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s11916-012-0307-6 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)SPR023008873 | ||
| 035 | |a (SPR)s11916-012-0307-6-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Campbell, Claudia M. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Psychological Screening/Phenotyping as Predictors for Spinal Cord Stimulation |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2012 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is becoming a widely used treatment for a number of pain conditions and is frequently considered as a pain management option when conservative or less invasive techniques have proven to be ineffective. Potential indications for SCS include complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), postherpetic neuralgia, traumatic nerve injury, failed back surgery syndrome, refractory angina pectoris, peripheral vascular disease, neuropathic pain, and visceral pain (Guttman et al. Pain Pract. 9:308–11, 2009). While research on SCS is in its infancy, it is clear that substantial variation exists in the degree of benefit obtained from SCS, and the procedure does not come without risks; thus focused patient selection is becoming very important. Psychological characteristics play an important role in shaping individual differences in the pain experience and may influence responses to SCS, as well as a variety of other pain treatments (Doleys Neurosurg Focus 21:E1, 2006). In addition to psychological assessment, quantitative sensory testing (QST) procedures offer another valuable resource in forecasting who may benefit most from SCS and may also shed light on mechanisms underlying the individual characteristics promoting the effectiveness of such procedures (Eisenberg et al. Pain Pract. 6:161–165, 2006). Here, we present a brief overview of recent studies examining these factors in their relationship with SCS outcomes. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Spinal cord stimulation |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Psychological assessment |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a QST |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Pain testing |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Jamison, Robert N. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Edwards, Robert R. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Current Review of Pain |d Current Medicine Group, 1998 |g 17(2012), 1 vom: 18. Dez. |w (DE-627)SPR023001666 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:17 |g year:2012 |g number:1 |g day:18 |g month:12 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11916-012-0307-6 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_252 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 17 |j 2012 |e 1 |b 18 |c 12 | ||
| author_variant |
c m c cm cmc r n j rn rnj r r e rr rre |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
campbellclaudiamjamisonrobertnedwardsrob:2012----:scooiasreighntpnapeitrfrp |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2012 |
| publishDate |
2012 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s11916-012-0307-6 doi (DE-627)SPR023008873 (SPR)s11916-012-0307-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Campbell, Claudia M. verfasserin aut Psychological Screening/Phenotyping as Predictors for Spinal Cord Stimulation 2012 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is becoming a widely used treatment for a number of pain conditions and is frequently considered as a pain management option when conservative or less invasive techniques have proven to be ineffective. Potential indications for SCS include complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), postherpetic neuralgia, traumatic nerve injury, failed back surgery syndrome, refractory angina pectoris, peripheral vascular disease, neuropathic pain, and visceral pain (Guttman et al. Pain Pract. 9:308–11, 2009). While research on SCS is in its infancy, it is clear that substantial variation exists in the degree of benefit obtained from SCS, and the procedure does not come without risks; thus focused patient selection is becoming very important. Psychological characteristics play an important role in shaping individual differences in the pain experience and may influence responses to SCS, as well as a variety of other pain treatments (Doleys Neurosurg Focus 21:E1, 2006). In addition to psychological assessment, quantitative sensory testing (QST) procedures offer another valuable resource in forecasting who may benefit most from SCS and may also shed light on mechanisms underlying the individual characteristics promoting the effectiveness of such procedures (Eisenberg et al. Pain Pract. 6:161–165, 2006). Here, we present a brief overview of recent studies examining these factors in their relationship with SCS outcomes. Spinal cord stimulation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Psychological assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 QST (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pain testing (dpeaa)DE-He213 Jamison, Robert N. verfasserin aut Edwards, Robert R. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Current Review of Pain Current Medicine Group, 1998 17(2012), 1 vom: 18. Dez. (DE-627)SPR023001666 nnns volume:17 year:2012 number:1 day:18 month:12 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11916-012-0307-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_252 AR 17 2012 1 18 12 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s11916-012-0307-6 doi (DE-627)SPR023008873 (SPR)s11916-012-0307-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Campbell, Claudia M. verfasserin aut Psychological Screening/Phenotyping as Predictors for Spinal Cord Stimulation 2012 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is becoming a widely used treatment for a number of pain conditions and is frequently considered as a pain management option when conservative or less invasive techniques have proven to be ineffective. Potential indications for SCS include complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), postherpetic neuralgia, traumatic nerve injury, failed back surgery syndrome, refractory angina pectoris, peripheral vascular disease, neuropathic pain, and visceral pain (Guttman et al. Pain Pract. 9:308–11, 2009). While research on SCS is in its infancy, it is clear that substantial variation exists in the degree of benefit obtained from SCS, and the procedure does not come without risks; thus focused patient selection is becoming very important. Psychological characteristics play an important role in shaping individual differences in the pain experience and may influence responses to SCS, as well as a variety of other pain treatments (Doleys Neurosurg Focus 21:E1, 2006). In addition to psychological assessment, quantitative sensory testing (QST) procedures offer another valuable resource in forecasting who may benefit most from SCS and may also shed light on mechanisms underlying the individual characteristics promoting the effectiveness of such procedures (Eisenberg et al. Pain Pract. 6:161–165, 2006). Here, we present a brief overview of recent studies examining these factors in their relationship with SCS outcomes. Spinal cord stimulation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Psychological assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 QST (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pain testing (dpeaa)DE-He213 Jamison, Robert N. verfasserin aut Edwards, Robert R. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Current Review of Pain Current Medicine Group, 1998 17(2012), 1 vom: 18. Dez. (DE-627)SPR023001666 nnns volume:17 year:2012 number:1 day:18 month:12 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11916-012-0307-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_252 AR 17 2012 1 18 12 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s11916-012-0307-6 doi (DE-627)SPR023008873 (SPR)s11916-012-0307-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Campbell, Claudia M. verfasserin aut Psychological Screening/Phenotyping as Predictors for Spinal Cord Stimulation 2012 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is becoming a widely used treatment for a number of pain conditions and is frequently considered as a pain management option when conservative or less invasive techniques have proven to be ineffective. Potential indications for SCS include complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), postherpetic neuralgia, traumatic nerve injury, failed back surgery syndrome, refractory angina pectoris, peripheral vascular disease, neuropathic pain, and visceral pain (Guttman et al. Pain Pract. 9:308–11, 2009). While research on SCS is in its infancy, it is clear that substantial variation exists in the degree of benefit obtained from SCS, and the procedure does not come without risks; thus focused patient selection is becoming very important. Psychological characteristics play an important role in shaping individual differences in the pain experience and may influence responses to SCS, as well as a variety of other pain treatments (Doleys Neurosurg Focus 21:E1, 2006). In addition to psychological assessment, quantitative sensory testing (QST) procedures offer another valuable resource in forecasting who may benefit most from SCS and may also shed light on mechanisms underlying the individual characteristics promoting the effectiveness of such procedures (Eisenberg et al. Pain Pract. 6:161–165, 2006). Here, we present a brief overview of recent studies examining these factors in their relationship with SCS outcomes. Spinal cord stimulation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Psychological assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 QST (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pain testing (dpeaa)DE-He213 Jamison, Robert N. verfasserin aut Edwards, Robert R. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Current Review of Pain Current Medicine Group, 1998 17(2012), 1 vom: 18. Dez. (DE-627)SPR023001666 nnns volume:17 year:2012 number:1 day:18 month:12 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11916-012-0307-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_252 AR 17 2012 1 18 12 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s11916-012-0307-6 doi (DE-627)SPR023008873 (SPR)s11916-012-0307-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Campbell, Claudia M. verfasserin aut Psychological Screening/Phenotyping as Predictors for Spinal Cord Stimulation 2012 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is becoming a widely used treatment for a number of pain conditions and is frequently considered as a pain management option when conservative or less invasive techniques have proven to be ineffective. Potential indications for SCS include complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), postherpetic neuralgia, traumatic nerve injury, failed back surgery syndrome, refractory angina pectoris, peripheral vascular disease, neuropathic pain, and visceral pain (Guttman et al. Pain Pract. 9:308–11, 2009). While research on SCS is in its infancy, it is clear that substantial variation exists in the degree of benefit obtained from SCS, and the procedure does not come without risks; thus focused patient selection is becoming very important. Psychological characteristics play an important role in shaping individual differences in the pain experience and may influence responses to SCS, as well as a variety of other pain treatments (Doleys Neurosurg Focus 21:E1, 2006). In addition to psychological assessment, quantitative sensory testing (QST) procedures offer another valuable resource in forecasting who may benefit most from SCS and may also shed light on mechanisms underlying the individual characteristics promoting the effectiveness of such procedures (Eisenberg et al. Pain Pract. 6:161–165, 2006). Here, we present a brief overview of recent studies examining these factors in their relationship with SCS outcomes. Spinal cord stimulation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Psychological assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 QST (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pain testing (dpeaa)DE-He213 Jamison, Robert N. verfasserin aut Edwards, Robert R. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Current Review of Pain Current Medicine Group, 1998 17(2012), 1 vom: 18. Dez. (DE-627)SPR023001666 nnns volume:17 year:2012 number:1 day:18 month:12 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11916-012-0307-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_252 AR 17 2012 1 18 12 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s11916-012-0307-6 doi (DE-627)SPR023008873 (SPR)s11916-012-0307-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Campbell, Claudia M. verfasserin aut Psychological Screening/Phenotyping as Predictors for Spinal Cord Stimulation 2012 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is becoming a widely used treatment for a number of pain conditions and is frequently considered as a pain management option when conservative or less invasive techniques have proven to be ineffective. Potential indications for SCS include complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), postherpetic neuralgia, traumatic nerve injury, failed back surgery syndrome, refractory angina pectoris, peripheral vascular disease, neuropathic pain, and visceral pain (Guttman et al. Pain Pract. 9:308–11, 2009). While research on SCS is in its infancy, it is clear that substantial variation exists in the degree of benefit obtained from SCS, and the procedure does not come without risks; thus focused patient selection is becoming very important. Psychological characteristics play an important role in shaping individual differences in the pain experience and may influence responses to SCS, as well as a variety of other pain treatments (Doleys Neurosurg Focus 21:E1, 2006). In addition to psychological assessment, quantitative sensory testing (QST) procedures offer another valuable resource in forecasting who may benefit most from SCS and may also shed light on mechanisms underlying the individual characteristics promoting the effectiveness of such procedures (Eisenberg et al. Pain Pract. 6:161–165, 2006). Here, we present a brief overview of recent studies examining these factors in their relationship with SCS outcomes. Spinal cord stimulation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Psychological assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 QST (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pain testing (dpeaa)DE-He213 Jamison, Robert N. verfasserin aut Edwards, Robert R. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Current Review of Pain Current Medicine Group, 1998 17(2012), 1 vom: 18. Dez. (DE-627)SPR023001666 nnns volume:17 year:2012 number:1 day:18 month:12 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11916-012-0307-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_252 AR 17 2012 1 18 12 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Current Review of Pain 17(2012), 1 vom: 18. Dez. volume:17 year:2012 number:1 day:18 month:12 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Current Review of Pain 17(2012), 1 vom: 18. Dez. volume:17 year:2012 number:1 day:18 month:12 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Spinal cord stimulation Psychological assessment QST Pain testing |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Current Review of Pain |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Campbell, Claudia M. @@aut@@ Jamison, Robert N. @@aut@@ Edwards, Robert R. @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2012-12-18T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
SPR023001666 |
| id |
SPR023008873 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR023008873</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230520013011.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201006s2012 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11916-012-0307-6</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR023008873</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s11916-012-0307-6-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Campbell, Claudia M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Psychological Screening/Phenotyping as Predictors for Spinal Cord Stimulation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is becoming a widely used treatment for a number of pain conditions and is frequently considered as a pain management option when conservative or less invasive techniques have proven to be ineffective. Potential indications for SCS include complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), postherpetic neuralgia, traumatic nerve injury, failed back surgery syndrome, refractory angina pectoris, peripheral vascular disease, neuropathic pain, and visceral pain (Guttman et al. Pain Pract. 9:308–11, 2009). While research on SCS is in its infancy, it is clear that substantial variation exists in the degree of benefit obtained from SCS, and the procedure does not come without risks; thus focused patient selection is becoming very important. Psychological characteristics play an important role in shaping individual differences in the pain experience and may influence responses to SCS, as well as a variety of other pain treatments (Doleys Neurosurg Focus 21:E1, 2006). In addition to psychological assessment, quantitative sensory testing (QST) procedures offer another valuable resource in forecasting who may benefit most from SCS and may also shed light on mechanisms underlying the individual characteristics promoting the effectiveness of such procedures (Eisenberg et al. Pain Pract. 6:161–165, 2006). Here, we present a brief overview of recent studies examining these factors in their relationship with SCS outcomes.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Spinal cord stimulation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Psychological assessment</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">QST</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pain testing</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jamison, Robert N.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Edwards, Robert R.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Current Review of Pain</subfield><subfield code="d">Current Medicine Group, 1998</subfield><subfield code="g">17(2012), 1 vom: 18. Dez.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)SPR023001666</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:17</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2012</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:18</subfield><subfield code="g">month:12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11916-012-0307-6</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_252</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">17</subfield><subfield code="j">2012</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">18</subfield><subfield code="c">12</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Campbell, Claudia M. |
| spellingShingle |
Campbell, Claudia M. misc Spinal cord stimulation misc Psychological assessment misc QST misc Pain testing Psychological Screening/Phenotyping as Predictors for Spinal Cord Stimulation |
| authorStr |
Campbell, Claudia M. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)SPR023001666 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut |
| collection |
springer |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
Psychological Screening/Phenotyping as Predictors for Spinal Cord Stimulation Spinal cord stimulation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Psychological assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 QST (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pain testing (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
| topic |
misc Spinal cord stimulation misc Psychological assessment misc QST misc Pain testing |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc Spinal cord stimulation misc Psychological assessment misc QST misc Pain testing |
| topic_browse |
misc Spinal cord stimulation misc Psychological assessment misc QST misc Pain testing |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Current Review of Pain |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
SPR023001666 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Current Review of Pain |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)SPR023001666 |
| title |
Psychological Screening/Phenotyping as Predictors for Spinal Cord Stimulation |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR023008873 (SPR)s11916-012-0307-6-e |
| title_full |
Psychological Screening/Phenotyping as Predictors for Spinal Cord Stimulation |
| author_sort |
Campbell, Claudia M. |
| journal |
Current Review of Pain |
| journalStr |
Current Review of Pain |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2012 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| author_browse |
Campbell, Claudia M. Jamison, Robert N. Edwards, Robert R. |
| container_volume |
17 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Campbell, Claudia M. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s11916-012-0307-6 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
psychological screening/phenotyping as predictors for spinal cord stimulation |
| title_auth |
Psychological Screening/Phenotyping as Predictors for Spinal Cord Stimulation |
| abstract |
Abstract Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is becoming a widely used treatment for a number of pain conditions and is frequently considered as a pain management option when conservative or less invasive techniques have proven to be ineffective. Potential indications for SCS include complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), postherpetic neuralgia, traumatic nerve injury, failed back surgery syndrome, refractory angina pectoris, peripheral vascular disease, neuropathic pain, and visceral pain (Guttman et al. Pain Pract. 9:308–11, 2009). While research on SCS is in its infancy, it is clear that substantial variation exists in the degree of benefit obtained from SCS, and the procedure does not come without risks; thus focused patient selection is becoming very important. Psychological characteristics play an important role in shaping individual differences in the pain experience and may influence responses to SCS, as well as a variety of other pain treatments (Doleys Neurosurg Focus 21:E1, 2006). In addition to psychological assessment, quantitative sensory testing (QST) procedures offer another valuable resource in forecasting who may benefit most from SCS and may also shed light on mechanisms underlying the individual characteristics promoting the effectiveness of such procedures (Eisenberg et al. Pain Pract. 6:161–165, 2006). Here, we present a brief overview of recent studies examining these factors in their relationship with SCS outcomes. |
| abstractGer |
Abstract Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is becoming a widely used treatment for a number of pain conditions and is frequently considered as a pain management option when conservative or less invasive techniques have proven to be ineffective. Potential indications for SCS include complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), postherpetic neuralgia, traumatic nerve injury, failed back surgery syndrome, refractory angina pectoris, peripheral vascular disease, neuropathic pain, and visceral pain (Guttman et al. Pain Pract. 9:308–11, 2009). While research on SCS is in its infancy, it is clear that substantial variation exists in the degree of benefit obtained from SCS, and the procedure does not come without risks; thus focused patient selection is becoming very important. Psychological characteristics play an important role in shaping individual differences in the pain experience and may influence responses to SCS, as well as a variety of other pain treatments (Doleys Neurosurg Focus 21:E1, 2006). In addition to psychological assessment, quantitative sensory testing (QST) procedures offer another valuable resource in forecasting who may benefit most from SCS and may also shed light on mechanisms underlying the individual characteristics promoting the effectiveness of such procedures (Eisenberg et al. Pain Pract. 6:161–165, 2006). Here, we present a brief overview of recent studies examining these factors in their relationship with SCS outcomes. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is becoming a widely used treatment for a number of pain conditions and is frequently considered as a pain management option when conservative or less invasive techniques have proven to be ineffective. Potential indications for SCS include complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), postherpetic neuralgia, traumatic nerve injury, failed back surgery syndrome, refractory angina pectoris, peripheral vascular disease, neuropathic pain, and visceral pain (Guttman et al. Pain Pract. 9:308–11, 2009). While research on SCS is in its infancy, it is clear that substantial variation exists in the degree of benefit obtained from SCS, and the procedure does not come without risks; thus focused patient selection is becoming very important. Psychological characteristics play an important role in shaping individual differences in the pain experience and may influence responses to SCS, as well as a variety of other pain treatments (Doleys Neurosurg Focus 21:E1, 2006). In addition to psychological assessment, quantitative sensory testing (QST) procedures offer another valuable resource in forecasting who may benefit most from SCS and may also shed light on mechanisms underlying the individual characteristics promoting the effectiveness of such procedures (Eisenberg et al. Pain Pract. 6:161–165, 2006). Here, we present a brief overview of recent studies examining these factors in their relationship with SCS outcomes. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_252 |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
Psychological Screening/Phenotyping as Predictors for Spinal Cord Stimulation |
| url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11916-012-0307-6 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Jamison, Robert N. Edwards, Robert R. |
| author2Str |
Jamison, Robert N. Edwards, Robert R. |
| ppnlink |
SPR023001666 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s11916-012-0307-6 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T16:16:49.854Z |
| _version_ |
1803575267020505088 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR023008873</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230520013011.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201006s2012 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11916-012-0307-6</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR023008873</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s11916-012-0307-6-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Campbell, Claudia M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Psychological Screening/Phenotyping as Predictors for Spinal Cord Stimulation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is becoming a widely used treatment for a number of pain conditions and is frequently considered as a pain management option when conservative or less invasive techniques have proven to be ineffective. Potential indications for SCS include complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), postherpetic neuralgia, traumatic nerve injury, failed back surgery syndrome, refractory angina pectoris, peripheral vascular disease, neuropathic pain, and visceral pain (Guttman et al. Pain Pract. 9:308–11, 2009). While research on SCS is in its infancy, it is clear that substantial variation exists in the degree of benefit obtained from SCS, and the procedure does not come without risks; thus focused patient selection is becoming very important. Psychological characteristics play an important role in shaping individual differences in the pain experience and may influence responses to SCS, as well as a variety of other pain treatments (Doleys Neurosurg Focus 21:E1, 2006). In addition to psychological assessment, quantitative sensory testing (QST) procedures offer another valuable resource in forecasting who may benefit most from SCS and may also shed light on mechanisms underlying the individual characteristics promoting the effectiveness of such procedures (Eisenberg et al. Pain Pract. 6:161–165, 2006). Here, we present a brief overview of recent studies examining these factors in their relationship with SCS outcomes.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Spinal cord stimulation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Psychological assessment</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">QST</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pain testing</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jamison, Robert N.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Edwards, Robert R.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Current Review of Pain</subfield><subfield code="d">Current Medicine Group, 1998</subfield><subfield code="g">17(2012), 1 vom: 18. Dez.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)SPR023001666</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:17</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2012</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:18</subfield><subfield code="g">month:12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11916-012-0307-6</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_252</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">17</subfield><subfield code="j">2012</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">18</subfield><subfield code="c">12</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.399272 |