SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2026
Efficacy and safety of pulsed radiofrequency combined with nerve block for cervical radiculopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cervical radiculopathy is a common cause of neck-shoulder-arm pain and functional impairment. Although nerve block provides rapid analgesia, its durability may be limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated whether pulsed radiofrequency combined with nerve block offers superior efficacy and comparable safety to nerve block alone. Methods: Eight databases were searched from inception to April 10, 2026. Randomized controlled trials comparing pulsed radiofrequency plus nerve block with nerve block alone in adults with cervical radiculopathy or cervical nerve root pain were included. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Risk ratios or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Results: Nine randomized controlled trials involving 783 patients were included. Compared with nerve block alone, combined therapy significantly improved the overall clinical response rate (RR = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.05-1.22), reduced pain intensity measured by VAS score (MD = -0.87, 95% CI: -1.27 to -0.47), increased cervical flexion-extension range of motion (MD = 8.56, 95% CI: 1.67-15.44), and improved Yasuhisa Tanaka symptom scores (MD = 2.61, 95% CI: 1.81-3.40). No significant difference was observed in adverse reactions (RR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.52-1.78). Discussion: Pulsed radiofrequency combined with nerve block may provide greater pain relief and better overall clinical response than nerve block alone without increasing short-term adverse reactions. Nevertheless, the evidence for functional improvement remains uncertain. The pooled pain difference was modest, functional outcomes were supported by few studies, and the available evidence does not establish durable benefit beyond the reported follow-up periods. Further high-quality multicenter trials are needed to confirm long-term efficacy, clarify functional benefits, and optimize treatment protocols. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251271276, Identifier: CRD420251271276.
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.