ArticleJournal of pain research2026
CT-Guided Dorsal Root Ganglion Pulsed Radiofrequency Alone, with Ozone, or with Platelet-Rich Plasma for Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Direct randomized evidence comparing dorsal root ganglion pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) alone, PRF plus ozone, and PRF plus platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) remains limited. Objective: To compare the 90-day efficacy and safety of computed tomography-guided dorsal root ganglion PRF alone, PRF plus ozone, and PRF plus PRP in patients with PHN. Methods: This single-center randomized controlled trial was conducted at a pain-treatment center in Changzhi, China, from July to December 2025. Adults aged 50-70 years with single-segment PHN lasting >3 months were assigned 1:1:1 to PRF alone as the active control, PRF plus ozone, or PRF plus PRP. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and 30, 60, and 90 days. Outcomes included 10-cm Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR). Longitudinal outcomes were assessed using mixed-effects models with Holm-Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons. Results: The complete-case/per-protocol population included 122 participants: 38 PRF alone, 43 PRF plus ozone, and 41 PRF plus PRP. Baseline characteristics were comparable. At 90 days, PRF plus PRP showed greater improvement in VAS than PRF alone and PRF plus ozone (mean differences, -2.49 [95% CI, -2.88 to -2.10] and -1.43 [-1.80 to -1.05]), PSQI (-5.72 [-7.09 to -4.36] and -4.77 [-6.09 to -3.44]), SF-12 (20.91 [17.44 to 24.38] and 17.72 [14.35 to 21.08]), and NLR (-0.89 [-1.30 to -0.47] and -1.00 [-1.40 to -0.59]); all adjusted P values were <0.001. No PRP-related complications were observed. Conclusion: PRF plus PRP was associated with greater 90-day multidimensional improvement than PRF alone or PRF plus ozone. Given the single-center design, these results should be regarded as preliminary and require validation in larger, well-designed multicenter randomized trials.
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.