Effect of CT-Guided Repeated Pulsed Radiofrequency on Controlling Acute/Subacute Zoster-Associated Pain: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Zoster-associated pain (ZAP) treatment and management is still inadequate. Repeated intervention protocol is often applied to manage ZAP. This study aimed to retrospectively investigate the effect of repeated applications of pulsed radiofrequency therapy on controlling acute/subacute ZAP. METHODS: From March 2019 to December 2021, 150 patients with acute/subacute ZAP who underwent repeated application of pulsed radiofrequency treatment (R-PRF) and pulsed radiofrequency combined paravertebral block interventions (PRF + PVB) in the Pain Department of the affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University were enrolled. Patients were grouped by intervention protocol and received at least 12 months of follow-up assessments using the Numerical Rating Scale score (NRSs), Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Simple McGill Pain Questionnaire-2 score (SF-MPQ-2s), and follow-up interventions. RESULTS: Both groups experienced a reduction in the incidence of clinically meaningful ZAP after the intervention therapy. In the R-PRF group, there were 36 cases of clinically meaningful ZAP within the first month post-treatment, while the PRF + PVB group had 38 cases. The incidence of clinically meaningful ZAP, as determined by multivariable generalized estimating equations, was 42.86% in the R-PRF group and 57.58% in the PRF + PVB group during the first month of follow-up. There was a significant difference in the incidence of clinically meaningful ZAP between the two groups after 1 month of treatment (adjusted odds ratio: 0.40; 95% confidence interval: 0.18-0.91; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Both R-PRF and PRF + PVB treatments effectively relieve pain in patients with acute/subacute ZAP. However, R-PRF may have superior efficacy compared to PRF + PVB in reducing the incidence of clinically meaningful ZAP 1 month after treatment.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".