Real-world outcomes in spinal cord stimulation: predictors of reported effect and explantation using a comprehensive registry-based approach: Erratum

In the publication by Kirketeig et al.,¹ “Real-world outcomes in spinal cord stimulation: predictors of reported effect and explantation using a comprehensive registry-based approach,” published in PAIN Reports, vol 8, 2023, the authors note inadvertent errors in the reporting that should have been corrected prior to publication. In the interest of accuracy, the authors wish to make the following corrections:

• (1) In the Results section of the abstract, the correct P-value for age above 60 years old as a risk factor for explantation due to insufficient analgesia is 0.041.

• (2) Outcome data on pain interference and pain intensity were incorrectly labelled, leading to errors in table 5 and 6 and figure 4 and 5.

• (3) Calculation on pain intensity in table 4 was incorrect.

• (4) Section 3.4 should read: Mean difference in pain intensity across all EoS categories was −29.4% (95% CI −33.0 to −25.9) and for pain interference, it was −21.3% (95% CI −32.9 to −9.6).

• (5) Section 4.4 should read: In the studied population, close to half of the patients reported a successful outcome, meaning “acceptable pain relief” or better, with a corresponding mean 29.4% pain intensity reduction.

The replacement tables and figures follow:

Figure 4. Mean difference in pain intensity between baseline and follow-up, by category of effect of stimulation. Error bars represent 95% confidence interval.

Figure 5. Mean difference in pain interference between baseline and follow-up, by category of effect of stimulation. Error bars represent 95% confidence interval.

Table 4.

Mean pain intensity and pain interference at baseline and follow-up.

	Baseline (BL)		Follow-up (FU)		Mean percent difference from BL to FU (CI)	Proportion of patients reporting > −30% change from BL to FU	Proportion of patients reporting > −50% change from BL to FU
Pain intensity (N = 244)	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
	7.9	1.8	5.4	2.4	−29.4 (−33.0 to −25.9)	48.3%	20.1%
Pain interference (N = 115)	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
	6.5	2.0	4.7	2.8	−21.3 (−32.9 to −9.6)	43.9%	31.6%

Pain intensity and pain interference measured using the Brief Pain Inventory.

CI, 95% confidence interval; SD, Standard deviation.

Table 5.

Mean difference in pain intensity between baseline and follow-up, by category of effect of stimulation.

Pain intensity
EoS category	N	Mean difference (%)	95% CI lower (%)	95% CI upper (%)
Freedom from pain	7	−73.8	−105.7	−42.0
Considerable pain relief	49	−48.0	−55.8	−40.3
Acceptable pain relief	82	−32.9	−37.9	−27.9
Some pain relief	98	−15.3	−19.5	−11.0
No pain relief/Worsened pain	8	−15.3	−25.8	−4.8
All groups	244	−29.4	−33.0	−25.9

Data available for analysis in 244 of 411 patients.

CI, confidence interval; Eos, Effect of Stimulation, a 6-level categorical patient-reported outcome measurement to assess the global effect of the implanted neurostimulation system at follow up.

Table 6.

Mean difference in pain interference between baseline and follow-up, by category of effect of stimulation.

Pain interference
EoS category	N	Mean difference (%)	95% CI lower (%)	95% CI upper (%)
Freedom from pain	4	−91.5	−100.7	−82.4
Considerable pain relief	24	−66.7	−77.5	−55.9
Acceptable pain relief	43	−18.4	−30.8	−6.0
Some pain relief	40	8.6	−17.2	34.4
No pain relief/Worsened pain	4	−7.5	−18.1	3.1
All groups	115	−21.3	−32.9	−9.6

Data available for analysis in 115 of 411 patients.

CI, confidence interval; Eos, Effect of Stimulation, a 6-level categorical patient-reported outcome measurement to assess the global effect of the implanted neurostimulation system at follow up.

The final conclusions of the publication are not affected by these errors.

The authors wish to apologize for the errors and any inconvenience caused.