Summary of findings 3. Discs: radiofrequency denervation versus placebo.
| Discs: radiofrequency denervation versus placebo | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with chronic low back pain Settings: secondary care Intervention: discs: radiofrequency denervation Comparision: placebo | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Placebo | Radiofrequency denervation | |||||
| Pain 1 month post treatment (VAS 0 to 10) | Pain score in control group was 5.7 |
Pain score in intervention groups was 0.4 lower (1.5 lower to 0.7 higher) | 56 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa,b | ||
| Pain 1 to 6 months post treatment (VAS 0 to 10) | Mean pain score ranged across control groups from 4.4 to 5.9 |
Mean pain score in intervention groups was on average 0.3 higher (2.3 lower to 2.8 higher) | 84 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowb,c | ||
| Pain > 6 months post treatment (VAS 0 to 10) | Mean pain score ranged across control groups from 5.3 to 6.6 |
Mean pain score in intervention groups was on average 0.8 lower (1.2 to 0.3 lower) | 75 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderateb | ||
| Function 1 month post treatment (ODI 0 to 100) | Functional status in control
group was 39.9 |
Mean function in intervention groups was on average 1.0 higher (6.9 lower to 8.9 higher) | 57 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa,b | ||
| Function 1 to 6 months post treatment (ODI 0 to 100) | Mean functional status ranged across control groups from 36.7 to 40.4 | Mean functioning in intervention groups was on average 0.9 higher (6.4 lower to 8.1 higher) | 85 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderateb | ||
| Function > 6 months post treatment (ODI 0 to 100) | Mean functional status ranged across control
groups from 28.2 to 41.2 |
Mean functioning in intervention groups was on average 6.8 lower (13.4 to 0.1 lower) | 76 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderateb | ||
| CI: Confidence interval; VAS: Visual analogue scale. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
aSingle study, in any case inconsistent. bFewer than 400 participants included. cI2 > 50%.