ArticleScientific reports2025
Prospective study on a new combination of pulsed radiofrequency and platelet-rich plasma injections for managing grade I lumbosacral spondylolisthesis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Our study aimed to investigate the clinical benefits of combining pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) techniques for treating chronic lumbosacral radicular (CLSR) pain resulting from grade I spondylolisthesis (G1SL). Ninety-six patients with CLSR pain between March 2021 and March 2023 were included in this study, 58 patients with G1SL without instability on dynamic radiographs - Group A and 38 patients with instability - Group B. Pre-procedure, Group B had higher pain levels than Group A. Post-procedure and at follow-up intervals, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores improved in both groups (p < 0.05) and there were no significant differences between the groups. Both groups also showed significant improvement in ODI scores post-procedure, which was maintained at follow-up intervals. The treatment effect, evaluated using the modified MacNab criteria, showed high rates of excellent and good outcomes in both groups, with no significant differences. Importantly, no patients experienced severe complications or required open surgery during the 6-month follow-up. Based on these findings, a new treatment combining PRF and PRP applications appears beneficial in managing pain in regenerative medicine. So, further clinical studies are necessary to support and validate our preliminary findings.
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.