| Literature DB >> 33850931 |
Jin-Feng Liu1, Wen Shen2, Dong Huang3, Tao Song4, Wei Tao5, Qing Liu6, You-Qing Huang7, Xiao-Mei Zhang8, Ling-Jie Xia9, Da-Sheng Wu10, Hui Liu11, Fu-Yong Chen5, Tang-Hua Liu12, Bao-Gan Peng13, Yan-Qing Liu14.
Abstract
On the basis of continuous improvement in recent years, radiofrequency therapy technology has been widely developed, and has become an effective method for the treatment of various intractable pain. Radiofrequency therapy is a technique that uses special equipment and puncture needles to output ultra-high frequency radio waves and accurately act on local tissues. In order to standardize the application of radiofrequency technology in the treatment of painful diseases, Chinese Association for the Study of Pain (CASP) has developed a consensus proposed by many domestic experts and scholars. ©The Author(s) 2021. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.Entities:
Keywords: Bipolar radiofrequency therapy; Expert consensus; Pain; Pulsed radiofrequency; Radiofrequency therapy; Standard radiofrequency therapy
Year: 2021 PMID: 33850931 PMCID: PMC8017496 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i9.2123
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Clin Cases ISSN: 2307-8960 Impact factor: 1.337
Qualitative modified approach to grading of evidence[46]
|
|
|
|
| Level I | Strong | Evidence obtained from multiple relevant high quality randomized controlled trials for effectiveness |
| Level II | Moderate | Evidence obtained from at least one relevant high quality randomized controlled trial or multiple relevant moderate or low quality randomized controlled trials |
| Level III | Fair | Evidence obtained from at least one relevant high quality nonrandomized trial or observational study with multiple moderate or low quality observational studies |
| Level IV | Limited | Evidence obtained from multiple moderate or low quality relevant observational studies |
| Level V | Consensus based | Opinion or consensus of large group of clinicians and/or scientists for effectiveness as well as to assess preventive measures, adverse consequences, effectiveness of other measures |
Guide for strength of recommendations[47]
|
|
|
| Strong | There is high confidence that the recommendation reflects best practice. This is based on: (1) strong evidence for a true net effect ( |
| Moderate | There is moderate confidence that the recommendation reflects best practice. This is based on: (1) good evidence for a true net effect ( |
| Weak | There is some confidence that the recommendation offers the best current guidance for practice. This is based on: (1) limited evidence for a true net effect ( |