Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26495910›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015

Radiofrequency denervation for chronic low back pain.

Esther T Maas, Raymond W J G Ostelo, Leena Niemisto, Jukkapekka Jousimaa, Heikki Hurri, Antti Malmivaara, Maurits W van Tulder

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 59 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
10.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03168802 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Comparative Study of Magnetic Resonance-guided Focused Ultrasound and Radiofrequency Ablation for Treatment of Facet-joint Osteoarthritis Low Back Pain

TypeinterventionalSponsorTaipei Medical University HospitalRan2018 to 2025Enrolled100ConditionsChronic Low Back Pain, Facet Joint SyndromeArmsMRgFUS ablation, Radiofrequency ablation
NCT04786145 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Cryoneurolysis Outcome on Pain Experience (COPE) in Patients With Low-back Pain - a Single-blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of AarhusRan2020 to 2022Enrolled120ConditionsChronic Low-back Pain, Facet Joint Pain, Degeneration Lumbar Spine, Facet Joint SyndromeArmsCryoneurolysis, Radiofrequency ablation, Placebo
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 155 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Update on Non-surgical Treatments for Lumbar Pain.Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2025
    Article
  15. [Update on Non-surgical Treatments for Lumbar Pain].Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Esther T MaasDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Raymond W J G Ostelo
Leena Niemisto
Jukkapekka Jousimaa
Heikki Hurri
Antti Malmivaara
Maurits W van Tulder
EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research · NLFinnish Institute for Health and Welfare · FIFinnish Medical Society Duodecim · FIInvalidisäätiö · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRadiofrequency (RF) denervation, an invasive treatment for chronic low back pain (CLBP), is used most often for pain suspected to arise from facet joints, sacroiliac (SI) joints or discs. Many (uncontrolled) studies have shown substantial variation in its use between countries and continued uncertainty regarding its effectiveness.

objectivesThe objective of this review is to assess the effectiveness of RF denervation procedures for the treatment of patients with CLBP. The current review is an update of the review conducted in 2003. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, three other databases, two clinical trials registries and the reference lists of included studies from inception to May 2014 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) fulfilling the inclusion criteria. We updated this search in June 2015, but we have not yet incorporated these results. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of RF denervation for patients with CLBP who had a positive response to a diagnostic block or discography. We applied no language or date restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected RCTs, extracted data and assessed risk of bias (RoB) and clinical relevance using standardised forms. We performed meta-analyses with clinically homogeneous studies and assessed the quality of evidence for each outcome using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN

resultsIn total, we included 23 RCTs (N = 1309), 13 of which (56%) had low RoB. We included both men and women with a mean age of 50.6 years. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence as very low to moderate. Twelve studies examined suspected facet joint pain, five studies disc pain, two studies SI joint pain, two studies radicular CLBP, one study suspected radiating low back pain and one study CLBP with or without suspected radiation. Overall, moderate evidence suggests that facet joint RF denervation has a greater effect on pain compared with placebo over the short term (mean difference (MD) -1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.28 to -0.67). Low-quality evidence indicates that facet joint RF denervation is more effective than placebo for function over the short term (MD -5.53, 95% CI -8.66 to -2.40) and over the long term (MD -3.70, 95% CI -6.94 to -0.47). Evidence of very low to low quality shows that facet joint RF denervation is more effective for pain than steroid injections over the short (MD -2.23, 95% CI -2.38 to -2.08), intermediate (MD -2.13, 95% CI -3.45 to -0.81), and long term (MD -2.65, 95% CI -3.43 to -1.88). RF denervation used for disc pain produces conflicting results, with no effects for RF denervation compared with placebo over the short and intermediate term, and small effects for RF denervation over the long term for pain relief (MD -1.63, 95% CI -2.58 to -0.68) and improved function (MD -6.75, 95% CI -13.42 to -0.09). Lack of evidence of short-term effectiveness undermines the clinical plausibility of intermediate-term or long-term effectiveness. When RF denervation is used for SI joint pain, low-quality evidence reveals no differences from placebo in effects on pain (MD -2.12, 95% CI -5.45 to 1.21) and function (MD -14.06, 95% CI -30.42 to 2.30) over the short term, and one study shows a small effect on both pain and function over the intermediate term. RF denervation is an invasive procedure that can cause a variety of complications. The quality and size of original studies were inadequate to permit assessment of how often complications occur. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe review authors found no high-quality evidence suggesting that RF denervation provides pain relief for patients with CLBP. Similarly, we identified no convincing evidence to show that this treatment improves function. Overall, the current evidence for RF denervation for CLBP is very low to moderate in quality; high-quality evidence is lacking. High-quality RCTs with larger patient samples are needed, as are data on long-term effects.

Indexed as

Catheter AblationChronic PainDenervationFemaleHumansLow Back PainMaleMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID26495910
PMCPMC8782593
OpenAlexW2128980982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.