| Title |
Systematic Review of Radiofrequency Ablation and Pulsed Radiofrequency for Management of Cervicogenic Headaches
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Pain and Headache Reports, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11916-018-0673-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ravi K. Grandhi, Alan David Kaye, Alaa Abd-Elsayed |
| Abstract |
Cervicogenic headache (CHA) is a secondary headache which has a source in the upper cervical spine. Many traditional analgesic choices lack good efficacy in managing the associated pain. As a result, in management of CHA, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or pulse radiofrequency (PRF) has been tried with success. Our study investigated the use of RFA and PRF for the management of CHA. In the present investigation, a review of the literature was conducted using PubMed (1966 to February 2017). The quality assessment was determined using The Cochrane Risk of Bias. After initial search and consultation with experts, 34 articles were identified for initial review and 10 articles met inclusion for review. Criteria for inclusion were primarily based on identification of articles discussing cervicogenic headaches which were previously treatment resistant and occurred without any other pathology of the craniofacial region or inciting event such as trauma. This systematic review demonstrated that RFA and PRFA provide very limited benefit in the management of CHA. At present, there is no high-quality RCT and/or strong non-RCTs to support the use of these techniques, despite numerous case reports which have demonstrated benefit. This review is one of the first to provide a comprehensive overview of the use of RFA and PRF in the management of CHA. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Spain | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 50 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 17 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 12% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 10% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 23 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,968,843
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Current Pain and Headache Reports
#551
of 803 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,054
of 330,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Pain and Headache Reports
#22
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 803 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.