The Effectiveness of Pulsed Radiofrequency on Joint Pain: A Narrative Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) stimulation has been safely and effectively applied for controlling various types of pain. PURPOSE: We reviewed the literature on the efficacy of PRF for controlling pain in joint disorders. METHODS: We searched PubMed for papers published prior to September 7, 2019, that used PRF to treat pain due to joint disorders. The key search phrases for identifying potentially relevant articles were (PRF AND joint) OR (PRF AND arthritis) OR (PRF AND arthropathy). The following inclusion criteria were applied for the selection of articles: (1) patients' pain was caused by joint disorders; (2) PRF stimulation was applied to manage joint-origin pain; and (3) after PRF stimulation, follow-up evaluation was performed to assess the reduction in pain intensity. Moreover, joints with more than 3 reported PRF studies were included in our review. RESULTS: The primary literature search yielded 141 relevant papers. After reading their titles and abstracts and assessing their eligibility based on the full-text articles, we finally included 34 publications in this review. Based on the positive therapeutic outcomes of previous studies, PRF stimulation seems to be an effective treatment for cervical and lumbar facet, sacroiliac, knee, and glenohumeral joint pain. PRF appears to be beneficial. For confirmation of the effectiveness of PRF on joint pain, more high-quality studies are needed. CONCLUSIONS: Our review provides insights on the degree of evidence according to pain in each joint, which will help clinicians make informed decisions for using PRF stimulation in various joint pain conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it