Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2019
Cooled radiofrequency ablation of the genicular nerves for chronic pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on trial data.
Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02343003 (A Prospective, Multi-Center, RCT Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of Coolief™ Cooled Radiofrequency Probe to Create Lesions of the Genicular Nerves and Comparing Corticosteroid Injection in the Management of Knee Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
A Prospective, Multi-Center, RCT Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of Coolief™ Cooled Radiofrequency Probe to Create Lesions of the Genicular Nerves and Comparing Corticosteroid Injection in the Management of Knee Pain
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping to estimate health state utility: a systematic review of development and limitations.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of Efficacy among Three Radiofrequency Ablation Techniques for Treating Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Cooled versus conventional radiofrequency treatment of the genicular nerves for chronic knee pain: 12-month and cost-effectiveness results from the multicenter COCOGEN trial.Regional anesthesia and pain medicine · 2025Trial
- Comparison of cooled versus conventional radiofrequency treatment of the genicular nerves for chronic knee pain: a multicenter non-inferiority randomized pilot trial (COCOGEN trial).Regional anesthesia and pain medicine · 2023Trial
- Cooled radiofrequency ablation of the genicular nerves for chronic pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee: a cost-effectiveness analysis compared with intra-articular hyaluronan injections based on trial data.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Trial
- Rates of knee arthroplasty after genicular nerve ablation: A retrospective study utilizing a large national database.Interventional pain medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Genicular Artery Embolization: A Technical Review of Anatomy, Pathophysiology, Current Experiences, and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Bipolar Radiofrequency Neurotomy of the Genicular Nerves for Chronic Pain Due to Knee Osteoarthritis.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2022Article
- Health Economic Evaluations of Hip and Knee Interventions in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine: A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFor patients with painful knee osteoarthritis, long-term symptomatic relief may improve quality of life. Cooled radiofrequency ablation (CRFA) has demonstrated significant improvements in pain, physical function and health-related quality of life compared with conservative therapy with intra-articular steroid (IAS) injections. This study aimed to establish the cost-effectiveness of CRFA compared with IAS for managing moderate to severe osteoarthritis-related knee pain, from the US Medicare system perspective.
methodsWe conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis utilizing efficacy data (Oxford Knee Scores) from a randomized, crossover trial on CRFA (NCT02343003), which compared CRFA with IAS out to 6 and 12 months, and with IAS patients who subsequently crossed over to receive CRFA after 6 months. Outcomes included health benefits (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]), costs and cost-effectiveness (expressed as cost per QALY gained). QALYs were estimated by mapping Oxford Knee Scores to the EQ-5D generic utility measure using a validated algorithm. Secondary analyses explored differences in the settings of care and procedures used in-trial versus real-world clinical practice.
resultsCRFA resulted in an incremental QALY gain of 0.091 at an incremental cost of $1711, equating to a cost of US$18,773 per QALY gained over a 6-month time horizon versus IAS. Over a 12-month time horizon, the incremental QALY gain was 0.229 at the same incremental cost, equating to a cost of US$7462 per QALY gained versus IAS. Real-world cost assumptions resulted in modest increases in the cost per QALY gained to a maximum of US$21,166 and US$8296 at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that findings were robust to variations in efficacy and cost parameters.
conclusionsCRFA is a highly cost-effective treatment option for patients with osteoarthritis-related knee pain, compared with the US$100,000/QALY threshold typically used in the US.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.