Guidelines on neurostimulation for chronic pain: a compliance appraisal of reporting standards
Authors' conclusion
Current guidelines of neurostimulation for chronic pain exhibit significant variability in reporting items, with notable deficiencies in the description of key methodological areas.
Study context
- Population
- Guideline articles on neurostimulation (spinal cord, dorsal root ganglion, peripheral nerve stimulation) for chronic pain, database inception to April 17, 2024guideline articles
- Participants
- 24 articles
- Exposure
- RIGHT vs Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE)
- Outcome
- Percentage of completed RIGHT and AGREE checklist items
Methodological detailsreporting quality appraisal of guidelines, RIGHT and AGREE checklists
- Reporting quality appraisal of guidelines
- RIGHT and AGREE checklists
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Percentage of completed checklist items
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | Intraclass correlation coefficient (95% CI) |
|---|---|
| Inter-checklist agreement (RIGHT vs AGREE)Good agreement | 0.76 (0.44–0.90) |
Most frequently under-reported items (<25% completion)
- Population-specific considerations, cost/resource implications, guideline limitations, recommendation development process, magnitude of benefit vs harm, competing interests and their management
Predictors of reporting quality
- No significant associations between RIGHT/AGREE reporting quality and journal impact factor, year of publication, number of authors, or guideline themes
Original publication
Guidelines on neurostimulation for chronic pain: a compliance appraisal of reporting standards. Reg Anesth Pain Med. Published 6 July 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →