ReviewJournal of pain research2024
Efficacy and Safety of High-Voltage Pulsed Radiofrequency versus Standard-Voltage Pulsed Radiofrequency for Patients with Neuropathic Pain: A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of DRG pulsed radiofrequency parameters on the clinical outcome for battered sensory never syndrome: a prospective, triple-blind, randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Comparison of Gasserian ganglion conventional radiofrequency ablation and peripheral nerve pulsed radiofrequency in trigeminal neuralgia: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 2026Trial
- Ultrasound-guided high-voltage pulsed radiofrequency versus standard-voltage pulsed radiofrequency in refractory chronic cervical radicular pain randomized clinical trial.Journal of anesthesia · 2025Trial
- Efficacy of Epidural Pulsed Radiofrequency Treatment in Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome: A Prospective Clinical Study.Pain research & management · 2025Trial
- High versus low-voltage pulsed radiofrequency of the suprascapular nerve for chronic shoulder pain: A randomized pilot clinical trial.Interventional pain medicine · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of high-voltage radiofrequency on suprascapular nerve for the treatment of chronic shoulder pain.Interventional pain medicine · 2026Article
- Pulsed radiofrequency of S2-4 nerve roots vs ganglion impar neurolysis for severe perineal cancer pain.Pain reports · 2026Article
- Dorsal root ganglion neuromodulation restores accumbal gate to inhibit mechanical allodynia.The journal of headache and pain · 2026Article
- High-voltage pulsed radiofrequency of the suprascapular nerve for the treatment of chronic shoulder pain.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Comment on: "Pulsed radiofrequency treatment for the management of trigeminal neuropathic pain".Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Neuropathic pain (NP) is recognized as one of the most difficult pain syndromes which lacks a safe, well-tolerated and effective treatment. Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF), a novel and minimally invasive interventions, has been introduced to alleviate various types of NP. Previous studies reported PRF with higher voltage could further improve the treatment efficacy. Therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether high-voltage PRF is superior to standard-voltage PRF for the treatment of NP patients. Methods: Databases published from the date of inception until 15 March 2022 on PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs comparing high-voltage PRF and standard-voltage PRF in NP patients. The primary outcome measures were the efficiency rates of NP patients with high-voltage PRF or standard-voltage PRF treatment. Data analysis was conducted using the Review Manager software (RevMan V.5.3). Results: Six RCTs involving 423 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Compared with standard-voltage PRF group, the high-voltage PRF group attained a higher efficiency rate at 1 month (P = 0.04; I Conclusion: Our study supported that high-voltage PRF attained more satisfactory efficacy than standard-voltage PRF without increased side effects. High-voltage PRF could be a promising, effective, minimally invasive technology for NP patients.
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.