A critical overview of systematic reviews of radiofrequency ablation for knee osteoarthritis.

IF 2 4区医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Disability and Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-24 DOI:10.1080/09638288.2025.2469771

Jixin Chen, Qinxin Zhou, Weijie Yu, Dongdong Cao

{"title":"A critical overview of systematic reviews of radiofrequency ablation for knee osteoarthritis.","authors":"Jixin Chen, Qinxin Zhou, Weijie Yu, Dongdong Cao","doi":"10.1080/09638288.2025.2469771","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This overview aims to assess the methodological and evidence quality of systematic reviews related to radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for knee osteoarthritis (KOA).Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was conducted through two independent researchers in eight electronic databases from the inception to September 1, 2024. The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed by the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 tool. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool assessed the evidence quality.Results: Eight systematic reviews were finally included. The results of the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews were generally unsatisfactory. The limitations were a lack of pre-designed protocols, reasons for the inclusion of study types, a list of excluded studies, the consideration of the single study risk of bias, and management of conflicts of interest. A total of 56 outcome indicators were evaluated, with one item receiving a moderate quality rating, while the rest were classified as low or very low. Limitations were identified as the primary factors leading to the downgrade.Conclusions: RFA shows efficacy in treating KOA, with tolerable side effects. However, systematic reviews' poor quality indicates cautious interpretation needed. Future studies must enhance quality for robust EBM.","PeriodicalId":50575,"journal":{"name":"Disability and Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"5161-5170"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disability and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2025.2469771","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This overview aims to assess the methodological and evidence quality of systematic reviews related to radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for knee osteoarthritis (KOA).

Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was conducted through two independent researchers in eight electronic databases from the inception to September 1, 2024. The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed by the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 tool. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool assessed the evidence quality.

Results: Eight systematic reviews were finally included. The results of the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews were generally unsatisfactory. The limitations were a lack of pre-designed protocols, reasons for the inclusion of study types, a list of excluded studies, the consideration of the single study risk of bias, and management of conflicts of interest. A total of 56 outcome indicators were evaluated, with one item receiving a moderate quality rating, while the rest were classified as low or very low. Limitations were identified as the primary factors leading to the downgrade.

Conclusions: RFA shows efficacy in treating KOA, with tolerable side effects. However, systematic reviews' poor quality indicates cautious interpretation needed. Future studies must enhance quality for robust EBM.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

射频消融术治疗膝骨关节炎的系统综述。

目的：本综述旨在评估与射频消融（RFA）治疗膝骨关节炎（KOA）相关的系统评价的方法学和证据质量。方法：由两名独立研究人员对8个电子数据库进行综合检索策略，检索时间自成立至2024年9月1日。纳入的系统评价的方法学质量通过评估系统评价的方法学质量2工具进行评估。建议分级评估、发展和评价工具评估证据质量。结果：最终纳入8篇系统综述。纳入的系统评价的方法学质量结果通常不令人满意。局限性是缺乏预先设计的方案，纳入研究类型的原因，排除研究的列表，考虑单一研究的偏倚风险，以及利益冲突的管理。总共评估了56个结果指标，其中一个项目获得中等质量评级，而其余项目被归类为低或非常低。限制被确定为导致降级的主要因素。结论：RFA治疗KOA疗效确切，副作用可耐受。然而，系统评价的低质量表明需要谨慎的解释。未来的研究必须提高稳健循证医学的质量。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Disability and Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学

CiteScore

5.00

自引率

9.10%

发文量

415

审稿时长

3-6 weeks

期刊介绍： Disability and Rehabilitation along with Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology are international multidisciplinary journals which seek to encourage a better understanding of all aspects of disability and to promote rehabilitation science, practice and policy aspects of the rehabilitation process.