ArticleJournal of ultrasound2024
Evaluation of the efficacy of ultrasound-guided selective cervical nerve root pulsed radiofrequency treatment in patients with chronic cervical radicular pain.
Article in Journal of ultrasound, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of pulsed radiofrequency combined with nerve block for cervical radiculopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeManagement of cervical radicular pain is complex and may be resistant to conservative treatment. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of ultrasound-guided selective cervical nerve root pulsed radiofrequency (US-SCNR PRF) treatment in patients with radicular neck pain due to cervical disc herniation who did not respond to conservative treatment. The secondary aim was to determine the efficacy of the treatment in terms of functionality, neuropathic pain, and treatment-related adverse events.
methodsThis study included 62 patients with chronic cervical radicular pain who underwent US-SCNR PRF treatment. Pain intensity was assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale before treatment and at 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment. The Neck Disability Index and Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions were used to assess functionality and neuropathic pain before and 6 months after treatment. Significant pain relief was defined as ≥ 50% reduction in the pain score compared with the pre-treatment score.
resultsCervical radicular pain was significantly reduced at 1, 3, and 6 months after pulsed radiofrequency compared to pre-treatment (P < 0.001). Successful pain relief was achieved in 59.6% of the patients at 6 month. However, there was no significant difference between the mean pain scores in the 1st month, 3rd month and 6th month. In addition, the functionality and neuropathic pain scores were significantly reduced at 6 month.
conclusionsThese results suggest that US-SCNR PRF treatment is effective for cervical radicular pain, functionality, and neuropathic pain for at least six months in the majority of patients with refractory cervical radicular pain, and is considered a safer and preferable treatment modality due to real-time visualization of the cervical nerve roots and adjacent neurovascular structures and no radiation exposure.
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.