MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388781220 · doi:10.1097/ms9.0000000000001509

Is radiofrequency ablation effective in treating patients with chronic knee osteoarthritis? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2023· article· en· W4388781220 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bingkeng Chen, Yang Yang, Hui Wang, Xuefang Guo, Zhiqiang Wu, Zhibin Lan

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Medicine and Surgery · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWOMACOsteoarthritisMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialRadiofrequency ablationConfidence intervalSubgroup analysisVisual analogue scaleStrictly standardized mean differenceSurgeryPhysical therapyInternal medicineAblation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and aims: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the short-term and long-term efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and explore the role of diagnostic genicular nerve blocks in predicting treatment outcomes. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted, and nine randomized controlled trials involving 714 participants were included in the analysis. Data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and subgroup analyses were performed. The primary outcome measures were pain scores at 6 and 12 months, assessed using visual analogue scale and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: The meta-analysis revealed that RFA demonstrated a significant short-term efficacy in reducing pain compared to the control group at 6 months, as indicated by the pain scores [weighted mean difference (WMD): -2.69, 95% CI: -3.99, -1.40]. Similarly, WOMAC scores at 6 months favored the RFA group (WMD: -4.40, 95% CI: -7.12, -1.68). However, the long-term efficacy of RFA at 12 months remained uncertain for both pain scores (WMD: -0.88, 95% CI: -2.36, 0.61) and WOMAC (WMD: 0.03, 95% CI: -0.25, 0.32). Subgroup analysis suggested that a positive result from the diagnostic genicular nerve blocks test was associated with a more favourable short-term outcome. Conclusion: This meta-analysis provides moderate-quality evidence supporting the short-term efficacy of RFA in reducing pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis. The inclusion of a diagnostic genicular nerve blocks test prior to RFA may help identify patients likely to benefit from the procedure. But it still needs more large sample studies to verify the results. However, further research is needed to determine the long-term efficacy of RFA in managing knee osteoarthritis 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.061
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Medicine and SurgerySame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207