Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27734550›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2017

Randomized sham-controlled, double-blind, multicenter clinical trial on the effect of percutaneous radiofrequency at the ramus communicans for lumbar disc pain.

C W J van Tilburg, D L Stronks, J G Groeneweg, F J P M Huygen

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of pain (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 14. Discogenic Low Back Pain.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Trends in lumbar radiofrequency ablation utilization from 2007 to 2016.The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

C W J van TilburgDepartment of Anesthesiology, Multidisciplinary pain center, Bravis hospital, Bergen op Zoom, The Netherlands.
D L StronksCenter for Pain Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
J G GroenewegCenter for Pain Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
F J P M HuygenCenter for Pain Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NLBravis Ziekenhuis · NLErasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInvestigate the effect of percutaneous radiofrequency compared to a sham procedure, applied to the ramus communicans for treatment of lumbar disc pain.

methodsRandomized sham-controlled, double-blind, crossover, multicenter clinical trial. Multidisciplinary pain centres of two general hospitals. Sixty patients aged 18 or more with medical history and physical examination suggestive for lumbar disc pain and a reduction of two or more on a numerical rating scale (0-10) after a diagnostic ramus communicans test block. Treatment group: percutaneous radiofrequency treatment applied to the ramus communicans; sham: same procedure except radiofrequency treatment. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: pain reduction. Secondary outcome measure: Global Perceived Effect.

resultsNo statistically significant difference in pain level over time between the groups, as well as in the group was found; however, the factor period yielded a statistically significant result. In the crossover group, 11 out of 16 patients experienced a reduction in NRS of 2 or more at 1 month (no significant deviation from chance). No statistically significant difference in satisfaction over time between the groups was found. The independent factors group and period also showed no statistically significant effects. The same applies to recovery: no statistically significant effects were found.

conclusionsThe null hypothesis of no difference in pain reduction and in Global Perceived Effect between the treatment and sham group cannot be rejected. Post hoc analysis revealed that none of the investigated parameters contributed to the prediction of a significant pain reduction. SIGNIFICANCE: Interrupting signalling through the ramus communicans may interfere with the transition of painful information from the discs to the central nervous system. Methodological differences exist in studies evaluating the efficacy of radiofrequency treatment for lumbar disc pain. A randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind, multicenter clinical trial on the effect of radiofrequency at the ramus communicans for lumbar disc pain was conducted. The null hypothesis of no difference in pain reduction and in Global Perceived Effect between the treatment and sham group cannot be rejected.

Indexed as

Lumbar VertebraeAdolescentAdultAgedAge FactorsBack PainBody Mass IndexCross-Over StudiesDouble-Blind MethodFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPulsed Radiofrequency Treatment

Identifiers

PMID27734550
PMCPMC5324589
OpenAlexW2531337141

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.