ReviewJournal of pain research2026
Comparative Efficacy of Pulsed Radiofrequency-Based and Related Interventions for Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Network Meta-Analysis of 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of 12 interventions for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) through direct and indirect comparisons using a network meta-analysis. These interventions included pulsed radiofrequency (PRF), high-voltage pulsed radiofrequency (HPRF), Long-Term PRF (LPRF), selective nerve block (SVB), PRF combined with Nerve Block Therapy (PRF+SVB), spinal cord stimulation (SCS), PRF combined with drug therapy (PRF+drug), and other minimally invasive treatments. Design: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to January 2026. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and data analysis was performed with Stata 15.1. Results: A total of 27 RCTs involving 1996 patients were included. Network meta-analysis showed that SCS significantly reduced Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores (SUCRA: 77.3%, MD=3.17, 95% CI=1.74,4.60). PRF+drug ranked first in improving General Health (GH, SUCRA: 92.9%), Mental Health (MH, SUCRA: 100.0%), vitality (VT, SUCRA: 100.0%) scale scores, and reducing pregabalin dosage (SUCRA: 90.5%, MD=-387.08, 95% CI=-540.05,-234.10). Conclusion: SCS is the optimal intervention for pain relief in PHN, while PRF+drug effectively improves quality of life and reduces medication burden. These findings provide evidence-based support for individualized PHN treatment.
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.