ArticleInterventional pain medicine2023
FactFinders for patient safety: Motor stimulation testing in lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy and radiofrequency neurotomy in patients with posterior hardware.
Article in Interventional pain medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Consensus practice guidelines on sacroiliac joint complex pain from a multispecialty, international working group.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2025Guideline
- FACTFINDERS for PATIENT SAFETY: Minimizing complications in radiofrequency neurotomy: Part I-Implantable devices; Part II-Preprocedural BVNRFN imaging.Interventional pain medicine · 2025Article
- The effectiveness of lumbar medial branch radiofrequency ablation using a three-tined electrode: A real-world cross-sectional cohort study.Interventional pain medicine · 2025Article
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This series of FactFinders presents a brief summary of the evidence and outlines recommendations regarding the use of motor stimulation testing in lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy and performance of radiofrequency neurotomy in patients with posterior spinal hardware. The evidence in support of the following facts is presented: (1) Motor stimulation does not inherently protect against unwanted damage to the spinal nerve, exiting spinal nerve root or its ventral ramus due to a lack of sensitivity of this test for identification of electrode contact or close proximity to sensorimotor nerves. Even when motor stimulation is performed, verification of correct electrode placement with multiplanar imaging including a minimum of true anterior-posterior and lateral fluoroscopic views is a recommended safeguard. (2) The existence of posterior spinal hardware is not an absolute contraindication to radiofrequency neurotomy, but direct contact with hardware should be avoided.
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.