ArticleInterventional pain medicine2022
A comparison of the effectiveness of cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation for chronic facet joint syndrome in patients selected by two common medial branch block paradigms.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cervical medial branch nerve integrity after cervical spine surgery: Considerations for radiofrequency ablation.Interventional pain medicine · 2026Article
- 7. Cervical facet pain: Degenerative alterations and whiplash-associated disorder.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2025Review
- Radiofrequency Denervation of the Spine and the Sacroiliac Joint: A Systematic Review based on the Grades of Recommendations, Assesment, Development, and Evaluation Approach Resulting in a German National Guideline.Global spine journal · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation (CMBRFA) is effective when patients are selected by dual medial branch blocks (MBBs). SIS guidelines recommend 100% pain improvement after dual comparative MBBs before CMBRFA; however, our prior investigation showed similar outcomes in those selected by a lesser strict paradigm. Objective: Compare pain and patient impression of improvement after CMBRFA in individuals stratified by a less stringent (80-99%) dual MBB response than those selected by the 100% criteria. Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Follow-up was conducted via standardized telephone survey at ≥6 months post-CMBRFA to obtain Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scores. Primary and secondary outcomes were within-group and between-group differences in the proportions of patients reporting ≥50% NRS score reduction and PGIC scores. Results: Medical records of 195 consecutive patients were reviewed; 100 individuals were analyzed. 48% (95% CI 35-61%) and 52% (95% CI 37-67%) of the 80-99% and 100% MBB groups, reported ≥50% pain reduction at ≥6 months post-CMBRFA. 74% (95% CI 63-85%) and 67% (95% CI 52-81%) of the 80-99% and 100% MBB groups reported a PGIC score consistent with "improved" or "very much improved." There were no significant between-group differences in any outcome at any time point. Conclusions: We observed similar rates of pain relief and global improvement after CMBRFA in patients selected by dual MBBs with ≥80% symptom relief versus 100% relief. This provides evidence that a more practical criteria, compared to a more strict selection paradigm, may result in similar clinical outcomes.
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.