ArticleInterventional pain medicine2022
Cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency neurotomy to treat zygapophysial joint pain compared with pain rehabilitation programs.
Article in Interventional pain medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interventional pain management focused on zygapophysial joint pain: current landscape and future perspectives.Pain management · 2025Review
- 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
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic pain is a widespread condition that causes much suffering and significant cost to society. Pain rehabilitation programs (REH) have dominated the treatment of chronic pain in Sweden in recent decades. Although radiofrequency neurotomy (RFN) was cost-effective in recent studies, the long-term health and economic effects of REH have not been comprehensively evaluated. Design: Observational study with propensity score weighting to compare RFN and REH. Methods: Patients assessed and treated between 2010 and 2016 were eligible; 15,357 underwent REH and 254 underwent RFN. Patient data were combined with linked data from national registers. We used propensity score weighting to mimic a randomized controlled trial using baseline gender, age, and baseline health-related quality of life as covariates. Results: Health-related quality of life improved significantly in both groups, by 0.164 and 0.352 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at 1 and 2 years after REH, and by 0.186 and 0.448 QALYs after RFN. The assessment and diagnostic procedures were slightly more expensive for RFN, but the treatment costs were greater for REH. Sick leave decreased after treatment in both groups, particularly after RFN. The cost per QALY gained 1 year after REH was ∼121,633 USD, which is considered "very expensive" according to the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. By comparison, the cost of RFN was ∼13,715 USD, in the "moderate" range. After 2 years the cost per QALY gained was in the "moderate" range for REH and "low" for RFN. Conclusions: RFN and REH improved health-related quality of life, with significantly greater improvement with RFN. The treatments were comparable based on propensity score weighting, and RFN was cost-effective in the moderate to low range, whereas REH was considered very expensive to moderate. Expanding RFN from 2% currently to 25% of the treatments given in Sweden could save ∼21.2 million USD annually in healthcare expenditure.
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.