Use of Pulsed Radiofrequency for the Treatment of Discogenic Back Pain: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low-back pain (LBP) is one of the most frequently reported symptoms of patients who visit pain clinics, and a significant proportion of them have discogenic pain. Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) stimulation is an effective treatment for various types of pain. PURPOSE: We reviewed articles which investigated the effectiveness of intradiscal PRF for controlling discogenic LBP. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We searched PubMed for papers published prior to August 7, 2020, in which intradiscal PRF was used for treating discogenic LBP. The key search phrase was (intradiscal PRF) for identifying potentially relevant articles. We included articles in which intradiscal PRF was used for controlling LBP. Review articles were excluded. RESULTS: Nine publications were included in this review. Except for one study, all other studies showed positive therapeutic outcomes after treating discogenic LBP using intradiscal PRF. However, the quality of these studies was not high. CONCLUSIONS: This review showed that intradiscal PRF appears to be a helpful treatment method for patients with discogenic LBP. Our review provides insights into the degree of evidence of the therapeutic effects of intradiscal PRF for alleviating discogenic LBP. For confirmation of the effectiveness of intradiscal PRF on discogenic LBP, more high-quality studies are necessary.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".