ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2024
Is radiofrequency ablation effective in treating patients with chronic knee osteoarthritis? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term efficacy of genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation in patients with advanced knee osteoarthritis: A retrospective cohort study.Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2026Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the short-term and long-term efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and explore the role of diagnostic genicular nerve blocks in predicting treatment outcomes. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted, and nine randomized controlled trials involving 714 participants were included in the analysis. Data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and subgroup analyses were performed. The primary outcome measures were pain scores at 6 and 12 months, assessed using visual analogue scale and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: The meta-analysis revealed that RFA demonstrated a significant short-term efficacy in reducing pain compared to the control group at 6 months, as indicated by the pain scores [weighted mean difference (WMD): -2.69, 95% CI: -3.99, -1.40]. Similarly, WOMAC scores at 6 months favored the RFA group (WMD: -4.40, 95% CI: -7.12, -1.68). However, the long-term efficacy of RFA at 12 months remained uncertain for both pain scores (WMD: -0.88, 95% CI: -2.36, 0.61) and WOMAC (WMD: 0.03, 95% CI: -0.25, 0.32). Subgroup analysis suggested that a positive result from the diagnostic genicular nerve blocks test was associated with a more favourable short-term outcome. Conclusion: This meta-analysis provides moderate-quality evidence supporting the short-term efficacy of RFA in reducing pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis. The inclusion of a diagnostic genicular nerve blocks test prior to RFA may help identify patients likely to benefit from the procedure. But it still needs more large sample studies to verify the results. However, further research is needed to determine the long-term efficacy of RFA in managing knee osteoarthritis pain.
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.