Radiofrequency ablation reduces pain for knee osteoarthritis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, there is poor evidence on the effect of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) on pain and knee function in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). We performed a meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the effectiveness and safety of RFA on pain and knee function in individuals with knee OA. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, Ovid and MEDLINE were systematically searched (up to March 20, 2021) to obtain literature focusing on the impact of RFA on knee OA, using the following keywords and their synonyms: "radiofrequency ablation", "neurotomy", "knee" and "osteoarthritis". Two authors independently evaluated the quality of the RCTs according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version. Pooled effects of this meta-analysis were calculated using STATA version 13.0. RESULTS: Eight RCTs were included for data extraction and meta-analysis. The present study indicated that there were significant differences between the two groups of patients who were treated or not treated with RFA on the pain intensity at 4 week (WMD = -0.504; 95% CI: 0.708 to -0.300; P < 0.001), 12 week (WMD = -0.280; 95% CI: 0.476 to -0.084; P = 0.005) and 24 week (WMD = -2.437; 95% CI: 4.742 to -0.132; P = 0.038). Furthermore, RFA was associated with improved outcome of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis index at 4 week (WMD = -3.189; 95% CI: 5.996 to -0.382, P = 0.026), 12 week (WMD = -3.706; 95% CI:-6.584 to -0.828, P = 0.012) and 24 week (WMD = -2.437; 95% CI: 4.742 to -0.132). No serious adverse events were observed in all patients who received RFA (RD = -0.019; 95% CI: 0.053 to 0.016; P = 0.294). CONCLUSION: RFA showed better effectiveness in relieving pain and promoting function recovery in patients with knee OA. Considering the small sample size of the included studies, the results should be treated with caution.
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 | 0.034 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.039 | 0.058 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 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) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".