MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121389803 · doi:10.1002/ejp.1735

A systematic review and meta‐analysis of radiofrequency procedures on innervation to the shoulder joint for relieving chronic pain

2021· review· en· W3121389803 on OpenAlexaff
Hemkumar Pushparaj, Yasmine Hoydonckx, Nimish Mittal, Philip Peng, Steven P. Cohen, Xingshan Cao, Anuj Bhatia

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Pain · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreToronto Western HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstituteWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnalgesicPulsed radiofrequencyObservational studyChronic painRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEMeta-analysisSystematic reviewPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnesthesiaSurgeryPain reliefInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Studies have reported relief of chronic shoulder pain with non-ablative pulsed neuromodulatory (pRF) or ablative radiofrequency (aRF) procedures on innervation of the shoulder joint but interpretation of these reports is hampered by inconsistent indications, anatomic targets and follow-up. This systematic review was conducted to synthesize the existing literature on procedures employing pRF or aRF for treating chronic shoulder pain. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: MEDLINE and other medical literature databases were reviewed up to 31 December 2019 for publications on pRF or aRF procedures on shoulder joint innervation to relieve chronic pain. Data on analgesic and functional outcomes measured at any time point following the interventions were extracted. Existing knowledge on innervation of the shoulder joint with relevance to RF procedures was also synthesized. RESULTS: In all, 42 publications, 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 35 observational studies, case series or reports were identified. Thirty-six of these publications were on pRF procedure and 29 of these reported procedures exclusively targeting the suprascapular nerve. A meta-analysis of the seven RCTs evaluating pRF indicated no analgesic benefit or functional improvement with this treatment over conventional medical management. Case series and reports on aRF indicate a potential for analgesic benefit but the quality of this evidence was low. CONCLUSIONS: RF treatments targeting the sensory innervation of the shoulder joint affected by degenerative conditions have the potential to reduce pain but the current evidence does not suggest analgesic or functional benefit (GRADE certainty of evidence-low). Studies of high methodological quality are required to further investigate the role of these interventions. SIGNIFICANCE: This is a comprehensive review of literature on pulsed (non-ablative) and ablative radiofrequency (RF) procedures for chronic shoulder pain. The systematic review and meta-analysis of 7 trials found that pulsed RF for chronic shoulder pain provided similar analgesia and functional improvement as conservative medical management at three months after the procedures. The case series and reports on ablative RF for shoulder pain indicate possible analgesic benefit but their quality was low. This review highlights the need for studies of a high quality on ablative RF treatments for chronic shoulder pain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of PainSame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207