ReviewFrontiers in surgery2022
Comparative efficacy of radiofrequency denervation in chronic low back pain: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current evidence on radiofrequency denervation for chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy of radiofrequency in lumbar facet joint pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials.La Radiologia medica · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy of Epidural Pulsed Radiofrequency Treatment in Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome: A Prospective Clinical Study.Pain research & management · 2025Trial
- Psoas Compartment Block Versus Medial Branch Block for Low Back Pain: A Narrative Review of Anatomical Targets, Clinical Evidence, and Patient Selection.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Multidisciplinary expert consensus on clinical diagnosis and therapies for low back pain.Bone research · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Ablation for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review of Sham-Controlled Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
- Radiofrequency Ablation for Chronic Pain: Mechanistic Insights and Emerging Innovations.Cureus · 2025Review
- Radiofrequency Ablation for the Management of Pain of Spinal Origin in Orthopedics.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Facet joint pain is a common cause of chronic low back pain (CLBP). Radiofrequency (RF) denervation is an effective treatment option. Purpose: A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and effectiveness of different RF denervation treatments in managing facet joint-derived CLBP. Methods: The Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and China Biology Medicine were searched to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from January 1966 through December 2021. Interventions included conventional radiofrequency denervation (CRF), pulsed radiofrequency denervation (PRF), pulsed radiofrequency treatment of the dorsal root ganglia (PRF-DRG), radiofrequency facet capsule denervation (RF-FC), and radiofrequency ablation under endoscopic guidance (ERFA). The outcome was the mean change in visual analog scale (VAS) score from baseline. A random-effects NMA was used to compare the pain relief effects of the interventions over the short term (≤6 months) and long term (12 months). The rank of effect estimation for each intervention was computed using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. Results: A total of 10 RCTs with 715 patients met the inclusion criteria. Moderate evidence indicated that CRF denervation had a greater effect on pain relief than sham control in the short term (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.58, 95% confidence intervals (CI) -2.98 to -0.18) and the long term (SMD -4.90, 95% CI, -5.86 to -3.94). Fair evidence indicated that PRF denervation was more effective than sham control for pain over the long term (SMD -1.30, 95% CI, -2.17 to -0.43). Fair evidence showed that ERFA denervation was more effective for pain relief than sham control in the short term (SMD -3.07, 95% CI, -5.81 to -0.32) and the long term (SMD -4.00, 95% CI, -4.95 to -3.05). Fair evidence showed that RF-FC denervation was more effective for pain relief than sham control in the long term (SMD -1.11, 95% CI, -2.07 to -0.15). A fair level of evidence indicated that PRF-DRG denervation was more effective for pain relief than sham control in the short term (SMD -5.34, 95% CI, -8.30 to -2.39). Conclusion: RF is an effective option for patients diagnosed with facet joint-derived CLBP.
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.