ArticleBMJ open2022
Efficacy and safety of high-voltage versus standard-voltage pulsed radiofrequency ablation for patients with neuropathic pain: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions for treating pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome- an overview of systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of High-Voltage Pulsed Radiofrequency versus Standard-Voltage Pulsed Radiofrequency for Patients with Neuropathic Pain: A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of pain research · 2024Review
- Efficacy of Gasserian Ganglion High-Voltage, Long-Duration Pulsed Radiofrequency Combined With Block on Acute/Subacute Zoster-Related Trigeminal Neuralgia.Pain research & management · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPulsed radiofrequency (PRF) ablation is commonly used for the treatment of neuropathic pain (NP). However, it is unclear whether increasing the output voltage of PRF can safely improve its efficacy. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of high-voltage PRF ablation and standard-voltage PRF ablation for the treatment of patients with NP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, conference proceedings for relevant abstracts, clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the WHO's International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (from the date of inception until 15 March 2022). Only randomised controlled trials will be included. Two reviewers (YJ and GF) will independently perform study screening and selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment and quality-of-evidence assessment. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis will be the efficiency rate in patients with NP. The secondary outcomes will include numeric rating scale score, visual analogue scale score, time to take effect, rescue drug dosage, quality of life using the health questionnaire (SF-36) and the incidence of adverse events. Meta-analyses will be conducted using standard meta-analysis software (RevMan V.5.3, The Nordic Cochrane Center, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The requirement for ethical approval was waived as our systematic review will be based on the published literature. The results of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022297804.
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.