SynthesisBMJ open2026
Current evidence on radiofrequency denervation for chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the effects of radiofrequency (RF) denervation for chronic low back pain (LBP) from facet joint, sacroiliac joint, discogenic and non-specific pain.
designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP up to 18 February 2025 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). STUDY SELECTION, DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Pairs of reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias (Cochrane RoB 2). Meta-analyses with clinically homogeneous studies were performed and certainty of evidence was assessed using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.
results55 RCTs (n=4394) were included; many outcomes were at some risk of bias. Low to moderate certainty evidence suggested small improvements in pain and function with RF denervation versus sham for facet joint pain, sacroiliac, discogenic and non-specific chronic LBP. None exceeded predefined minimally clinically important between-group differences, suggesting limited clinical relevance.
conclusionsRF denervation showed small improvements in pain and function compared with sham, steroid injection or standard care, but the effects did not reach clinically meaningful thresholds and the certainty of evidence was very low to moderate. Additional research is needed to clarify the effects of RF denervation and guide clinical decision-making. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023460743.
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.