Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30271194›Full record

ReviewJournal of pain research2018

Radiofrequency techniques to treat chronic knee pain: a comprehensive review of anatomy, effectiveness, treatment parameters, and patient selection.

David E Jamison, Steven P Cohen

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of pain research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05468398 (The Effect of Virtual Reality on Pain and Patient Satisfaction in Adults Receiving Genicular Nerve Radiofrequency Ablation), which is not on this map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
11.4field-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.

NCT05468398 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

The Effect of Virtual Reality on Pain and Patient Satisfaction in Adults Receiving Genicular Nerve Radiofrequency Ablation

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, IrvineRan2020 to 2024Enrolled40ConditionsPain, Patient SatisfactionArmsSoothe VR
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 9. Chronic knee pain.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Knee osteoarthritis: disease burden, available treatments, and emerging options.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Observational
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

David E JamisonDepartment of Anesthesiology, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC), Bethesda, MD, USA, scohen40@jhmi.edu.
Steven P CohenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC), Bethesda, MD, USA, scohen40@jhmi.edu.
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) procedures to treat chronic knee pain has surged in the past decade, though many questions remain regarding anatomical targets, selection criteria, and evidence for effectiveness.

methodsA comprehensive literature review was performed on anatomy, selection criteria, technical parameters, results of clinical studies, and complications. Databases searched included MEDLINE and Google Scholar, with all types of clinical and preclinical studies considered.

resultsWe identified nine relevant clinical trials, which included 592 patients, evaluating knee RFA for osteoarthritis and persistent postsurgical pain. These included one randomized, placebo-controlled trial, one randomized controlled trial evaluating RFA as add-on therapy, four comparative-effectiveness studies, two randomized trials comparing different techniques and treatment paradigms, and one non-randomized, controlled trial. The results of these studies demonstrate significant benefit for both reduction and functional improvement lasting between 3 and 12 months, with questionable utility for prognostic blocks. There was considerable variation in the described neuroanatomy, neural targets, radiofrequency technique, and selection criteria.

conclusionRFA of the knee appears to be a viable and effective treatment option, providing significant benefit to well-selected patients lasting at least 3 months. More research is needed to better identify neural targets, refine selection criteria to include the use of prognostic blocks, optimize treatment parameters, and better elucidate relative effectiveness compared to other treatments.

Indexed as

ablationdenervationgenicular nerveKnee painosteoarthritisradiofrequency

Identifiers

PMID30271194
PMCPMC6151104
OpenAlexW2889837006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.