Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022
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.
Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03381248 (A Prospective, Multi-center, Randomized, Clinical Trial Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of Using COOLIEF™ Cooled Radiofrequency Probe to Create Lesions of the Genicular Nerves and Comparing a Single Injection of Hyaluronic Acid in the Management of Knee Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.
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, Randomized, Clinical Trial Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of Using COOLIEF™ Cooled Radiofrequency Probe to Create Lesions of the Genicular Nerves and Comparing a Single Injection of Hyaluronic Acid in the Management of Knee Pain
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Returning to Work and Cost-Effectiveness After Lumbar Facet Cryodenervation Among Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Long-term outcomes of cooled versus conventional radiofrequency ablation of genicular nerves for chronic knee osteoarthritis pain: A randomised comparative study.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Comparative Long-Term Outcomes of Pulsed and Lesion Radiofrequency of the Greater Occipital Nerve in Chronic Migraine: A 12-Month Cohort Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Genicular Artery Embolization: A Technical Review of Anatomy, Pathophysiology, Current Experiences, and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Literature Review to Understand the Burden and Current Non-surgical Management of Moderate-Severe Pain Associated with Knee Osteoarthritis.Rheumatology and therapy · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEffective symptom control in painful knee osteoarthritis (OA) may improve patient quality of life. In a randomised crossover trial (NCT03381248), COOLIEF* cooled radiofrequency ablation (CRFA) reduced pain and stiffness and improved physical function and quality of life compared with intra-articular hyaluronan (HA) injections. The present study aimed to establish the cost effectiveness of CRFA versus intra-articular HA injections for treating moderate-to-severe OA knee pain from a US Medicare perspective.
methodsWe conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using utility data (EQ-5D) from the randomised crossover trial of CRFA versus intra-articular HA injections, which had follow-ups at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Patients in the HA group with unsatisfactory outcomes (e.g., continued pain) at 6 months could cross over to CRFA. Economic analysis outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost effectiveness (cost per QALY gained). Base-case analyses were modelled on a 6-month time horizon (to trial crossover). Due to limited trial data in the HA arm beyond 6 months, scenarios explored potential outcomes to 12 months if: 1) Utility with HA persisted for a further 6 months; 2) A second HA injection was received at 6 months and achieved the same utility change for the second 6 months. In both scenarios, the CRFA arm used trial data for patients who received CRFA from baseline to 12 months. Alternative costing scenarios were also explored.
resultsCRFA resulted in an incremental QALY gain of 0.020 at an incremental cost of US$1707, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$84,392 per QALY over 6 months, versus intra-articular HA injections. Extending the analysis to 12 months and assuming persistence in utility in the HA arm resulted in a larger utility gain for CRFA (0.056 QALYs) and a lower ICER of US$30,275 per QALY. If patients received a second HA injection, the incremental benefit of CRFA out to 12 months was reduced (QALY gain 0.043) but was offset by the costs of the second HA injection (incremental cost US$832). This resulted in an ICER of US$19,316 per QALY.
conclusionsCRFA is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with OA-related knee pain considering the typical US threshold of US$100,000/QALY.
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.