ReviewJournal of pain research2026
Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Ablation for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review of Sham-Controlled Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is widely used as an interventional treatment for chronic low back pain; however, its clinical effectiveness across different pain generators remains uncertain, particularly when evaluated in rigorously controlled trials. Objective: To systematically review randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of RFA for chronic low back pain, stratified by pain generator and radiofrequency technique. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating RFA for chronic low back pain. Trials employing sham or active comparator interventions were included. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Results: Six randomized controlled trials involving different pain generators were included. For discogenic low back pain, RFA of the ramus communicans did not demonstrate superiority over sham treatment, with pain reduction observed over time in both groups. Similarly, for facet joint pain, medial branch RFA was not superior to sham procedures within the studied follow-up period. For sacroiliac joint pain, results were heterogeneous. Sham-controlled trials evaluating conventional lateral branch RFA did not demonstrate a specific treatment effect, whereas studies employing alternative techniques, including strip-lesion, capsular, or cooled RFA, were associated with greater and more sustained pain reduction, with statistically significant between-group differences reported at up to 12 months in selected trials. Conclusion: Based on a limited number of randomized controlled trials, RFA does not consistently demonstrate superiority over sham treatment for discogenic or facet joint-related chronic low back pain. For sacroiliac joint pain, selected RFA techniques may offer benefit in appropriately selected patients; however, conclusions remain constrained by heterogeneity and small sample sizes. Further high-quality, sham-controlled trials are required before definitive clinical recommendations can be made.
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.