ReviewFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2026
Treatment of residual and phantom limb pain using percutaneous ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Limb loss is estimated to affect 176 million people globally. Up to 80% of patients experience significant residual limb pain (RLP) and phantom limb pain (PLP) following amputation, and generally respond poorly to conventional therapies. Percutaneous ablation has emerged as a promising intervention for both RLP and PLP pain. We sought to systematically review and evaluate the efficacy and adverse outcomes of thermal radiofrequency ablation (RFA), pulsed RFA, and cryoablation in the treatment of post-amputation pain. Methods: Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus databases were systematically search on August 19, 2024 for all English language articles related to post-amputation pain treated with an ablation technique. Articles were assessed for risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool for case reports and case series. Outcomes included response to standardized pain scales (either numeric rating scale or visual analog scale), functional outcomes, and adverse events. Results: Out of 1233 articles, 20 were included for analysis. This included 1 randomized control trial ( Conclusions: Both thermal and pulsed RFA appear to be safe and effective treatments for post-amputation pain. Further research is required to better assess their effectiveness and safety profile in larger and more well controlled studies.
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.